Brexit discussion thread III

An Ciarraioch

David Davis finally visits the Border - will Rees-Mogg follow suit?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-43872021?__twitter_impression=true

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Financial Times: Hiring tumbles at UK fund houses as Brexit plans kick in

Fund managers have cut the rate at which they are hiring in London by as much as half since the UK voted to leave the EU in June 2016.

I'm reading your post and am reminded of this, a few weeks ago:

ambro25 wrote: »

<...> The local fin market specialist headhunters I’ve spoken to, joke about shifting entire offices’worth of applicants over, rather than individuals :pac:

One of those was the Ops Director (a lovely US lady, 'typically' gregarious) of a headhunting outfit called the Funds Partnership ('the search specialists for the funds industry'), located boulevard Prince Henri in Luxembourg (-city).

An Ciarraioch

House of Lords votes to replicate the European charter of fundamental rights in UK law:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/23/theresa-may-suffers-third-brexit-defeat-in-lords

Capt'n Midnight

The Bank of England is likely to raise interest rates twice this year and twice in 2019, despite a sluggish economy, says a forecasting body. Given the level of personal debt in the UK this is not good news.

However, people were still prioritising essential spending over luxuries, with the retail and casual dining sectors facing "unprecedented challenges".

One for your diary
Voters will head to the polls on 3 May for the first England-wide test of electoral opinion since last year's dramatic general election.

An Ciarraioch

Barnier fairly hard-hitting tonight, effectively saying the ball's in the UK court:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3511_en.htm

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Barnier fairly hard-hitting tonight, effectively saying the ball's in the UK court:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3511_en.htm

Seems to me that there are some very interesting points raised in the speech that should cause some ructions for big companies in the UK.

But we believe that our future economic relationship should go even further. Let me mention four points.

1- First, in our future partnership we would like ambitious provisions on the movement of people, including related areas such as coordination of social security and the recognition of professional qualifications.

2- Secondly, in addition to trade, we offer a socio-economic cooperation.

For instance, we propose an air transport agreement, combined with aviation safety and security agreements.
The UK could also participate in certain EU programmes, for instance in the field of research and innovation, where participation of third countries is allowed. That said, it would be on a different financial and legal base than today.

These are points that have not been proposed raised yet so this will still need to be negotiated. So even with a free trade deal that will somehow ensure no borders and frictionless trade, there still needs to be a negotiated agreement on areas like air travel.

I also see the mention of the UK participating in EU programmes. This will not be a given, but will only be in programs where third country participation is allowed. Seems the message is clear as well, you used to pay 3.5% of the budget (very simple one of 28 sharing the cost) but in the new agreement you may pay more and have less legal rights to participate in some EU programmes.

Capt'n Midnight

More we-didn't-really-think-this-through.
The government is being urged to explain what arrangements it will put in place for the collection of VAT on cross-border trade after Brexit.

When the UK leaves the EU, VAT liabilities will have to be assessed by customs officials at borders unless some new arrangement is in place.
...
It warned that would pose "particular problems at the border on the island of Ireland".

About that ...

Back in January the Farmers Journal had this to say Living in a smuggler’s paradise

An auctioneer has suggested that land prices around the border could be on the rise after Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight

Brexit has shafted the UK's space sector, lord warns science minister

and this comment is golden

Before the EU we had the "Brain Drain". Then we were in the EU and now a lot of our researchers could go to the mainland and work on projects that we benefited from because we were in the EU. Now we're leaving the EU and it's back to the Brain Drain.

The new National Anthem needs to be a slightly modified version of the one in The Producers:

"Don't be stupid, be a smartie! Come and join the Nasty Party."

...and the little old ladies lose all their savings.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Brexit has shafted the UK's space sector, lord warns science minister

and this comment is golden

A quote from the last sentence of the above.

An ESA insider told The Register "the fact the UK is leaving shows that something is not entirely right with the EU and that the EU needs some level of reform".

Its not us, its them.

Thomas__.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It will be quite amusing if Charles is not confirmed as head of the commonwealth after the Queen.

He will be.  "Head of the Commonwealth" is a title with no powers or functions attached.  The Commonwealth as an organisation can function perfectly well without a "Head".  The only point of having a "Head" is to give the British monarch a role in the Commonwealth; the title was introduced when India became a republic, and for the first time the Commonwealth included a member which did not have the British monarch as head of state.  Being "Head" of the Commonwealth gives the Queen a connection to each member state which doesn't depend on her being Queen of it.

If the British monarch isn't the Head of the Commonwealth, there is literally no point at all to having a Head.  So the choice isn't so much "should it be the British monarch or someone else?" but "should the Commonwealth have a head or not?"

I'd call it chairman (or chairwoman) than or president of that organisation would do as well.

Peregrinus

Thomas__. wrote: »

I'd call it chairman (or chairwoman) than or president of that organisation would do as well.

The Commonwealth already has a Secretary-General (currently Lady Patricia Scotland), who actually runs the organisation, and a Chair-in-Office (currently Teresa May) whose role it is to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The sole function of the Head, as far as I can see, is to be the "symbol of the free association of independent member nations" of the Commonwealth. And since their free association can be symbolised by, well, anything, really - a flag, say - it seems to me that this is not an office or a role; it's just a title. It may be important to or beneficial for the British monarchs to have this title, but I can't see that it makes much difference one way or another to the Commonwealtn or its member states.

Leroy42

Its value lies in the same value that the royals have themselves. They don't have any actual power, but they ensure deference and thus respect and thus an acceptance by the populace that Britain still retains a role in the country.

It is purely symbolic, but even at that it is important that even symbolically Britain is still the head of the Commonwealth.

Its a passive form of control

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its value lies in the same value that the royals have themselves. They don't have any actual power, but they ensure deference and thus respect and thus an acceptance by the populace that Britain still retains a role in the country.

Nonononono! The title/role was created in recognition of the fact that Britain and its monarchy doesn't have a role in most Commonwealth countries.

Up until 1950, the British monarch was also monarch in each of the Commonwealth countries. This was seen as an essential aspect of Commonwealth membership. So, when Ireland became a republic, in 1949, that was recognised as taking us outside the Commonwealth. (In practice, of course, we had ceased to participate in Commonwealth affairs years before that.)

But India wanted to become a republic, and yet remain in the Commonwealth, and the UK was keen to facilitate that, since in those days it still cherished hopes that the Commonwealth would function as a basis for military co-operation, and it valued the Indian Army. So they came up with the idea ath the British monarch need have no role in Commonwealth member countries, but would symbolise the free association between Commonwealth countries - i.e. it would have a symbolic role in a country's external relations.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is purely symbolic, but even at that it is important that even symbolically Britain is still the head of the Commonwealth.

Its a passive form of control

Well, nitpick no. 1, it's not Britain that is head of the Commonwealth; it's Elizabeth. And that's not a title which is attached to the fact that she is queen of the UK, any more than it is attached to the fact that she is Queen of, say, St. Vincent and the Grenadines. It's a role that was conferred on her personally by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

And, nitpick no. 2, if it's a form of control at all, it doesn't control very much. The Commonwealth as an international organisation is pretty marginal. For many years now its most important function has been organising a big sports carnival where white folks who aren't American can hope to win medals.

Brexiters, to drag this discussion back to what this thread is supposed to be about, have hopes of giving the Commonwealth a new significance; turning it into a free trade block on terms that will favour the UK. of all the many delusions that Brexiters cherish, this is one of the most delusional.

Thomas__.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its value lies in the same value that the royals have themselves.  They don't have any actual power, but they ensure deference and thus respect and thus an acceptance by the populace that Britain still retains a role in the country.

Nonononono!  The title/role was created in recognition of the fact that Britain and its monarchy doesn't have a role in most Commonwealth countries.  

Up until 1950, the British monarch was also monarch in each of the Commonwealth countries.  This was seen as an essential aspect of Commonwealth membership.  So, when Ireland became a republic, in 1949, that was recognised as taking us outside the Commonwealth.  (In practice, of course, we had ceased to participate in Commonwealth affairs years before that.)

But India wanted to become a republic, and yet remain in the Commonwealth, and the UK was keen to facilitate that, since in those days it still cherished hopes that the Commonwealth would function as a basis for military co-operation, and it valued the Indian Army.  So they came up with the idea ath the British monarch need have no role in Commonwealth member countries, but would symbolise the free association between Commonwealth countries - i.e. it would have a symbolic role in a country's external relations.  

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is purely symbolic, but even at that it is important that even symbolically Britain is still the head of the Commonwealth.

Its a passive form of control

Well, nitpick no. 1, it's not Britain that is head of the Commonwealth; it's Elizabeth.  And that's not a title which is attached to the fact that she is queen of the UK, any more than it is attached to the fact that she is Queen of, say, St. Vincent and the Grenadines.  It's a role that was conferred on her personally by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

And, nitpick no. 2, if it's a form of control at all, it doesn't control very much.  The Commonwealth as an international organisation is pretty marginal.  For many years now its most important function has been organising a big sports carnival where white folks who aren't American can hope to win medals.  

Brexiters, to drag this discussion back to what this thread is supposed to be about, have hopes of giving the Commonwealth a new significance; turning it into a free trade block on terms that will favour the UK.  of all the many delusions that Brexiters cherish, this is one of the most delusional.

The certainly think about the economical strong CoN member states, less so about the economical weak, in their dream of an alternative single market to the EU.

Leroy42

Peregrinus, you are of course correct in pretty much everything that you said. But you are dealing in the 'facts' of the matter not the spirit.

There is no 'need' for the monarchy in the UK, certainly no need for other countries to continue to have it as their head. But it provides the UK with a great diplomatic reach, far beyond what other countries have.

The commonwealth is not a useful organisation at the present time, largely because it didn't provide Britain with anything useful, certainly not anything that the EU etc could not offer. That is why, suddenly, the Commonwealth is being talked about more in the UK. It is not because the UK think any better of the organisation but rather it is something they think they can use to reduce the loss if the EU.

Having the queen, or Prince Charles as the head, lets everyone know who is at the top of the pile. While it carries no actual power, it symbolises that the UK is the dominant member of the club, that the world still centres and looks to the UK.

And getting back to Brexit, the UK nows sees the value in a club, but one where it is the head and in charge. Brexit was never about not understanding the value if being stronger together (as the IndyRef told us) it was about the UK wanting to be in charge.

Hence why the likes of Davies, JRM, IDS etc have long been going on about how easy it would all be, how much the EU needed the UK and so on. They never really wanted to leave the EU, they just want the EU to be under their control. CU and SM, I totally believe that they all see the inherent advantages of these. The only problem is that currently, other countries, and not even big countries like France and Germany, but poor countries like Greece and Poland, get say.

Thomas__.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus, you are of course correct in pretty much everything that you said.  But you are dealing in the 'facts' of the matter not the spirit.

There is no 'need' for the monarchy in the UK, certainly no need for other countries to continue to have it as their head.  But it provides the UK with a great diplomatic reach, far beyond what other countries have.

The commonwealth is not a useful organisation at the present time, largely because it didn't provide Britain with anything useful, certainly not anything that the EU etc could not offer.  That is why, suddenly, the Commonwealth is being talked about more in the UK.  It is not because the UK think any better of the organisation but rather it is something they think they can use to reduce the loss if the EU.

Having the queen, or Prince Charles as the head, lets everyone know who is at the top of the pile.  While it carries no actual power, it symbolises that the UK is the dominant member of the club, that the world still centres and looks to the UK.

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. I would presume that this was one of the reasons for the UK govt to apply for EEC Membership which was rejected for a couple of times by France, namely De Gaulle. The UK was offered Membership when the first steps were taken to consitute the forerunner of the EEC, but Attlee declined and the first application for Membership in the EEC was in the 1960s. The UK was nearly desperate then to get into the EEC. Finally they came into the EEC together with the Republic of Ireland in 1973. The dismantling of the BE in those decades runs parallel to the efforts the UK has taken to become a member of the EEC and it was always for economical reasons, nothing else. Hence the ambivalence of many UK govts before and since being a member.

Sam Russell

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. I would presume that this was one of the reasons for the UK govt to apply for EEC Membership which was rejected for a couple of times by France, namely De Gaulle. The UK was offered Membership when the first steps were taken to consitute the forerunner of the EEC, but Attlee declined and the first application for Membership in the EEC was in the 1960s. The UK was nearly desperate then to get into the EEC. Finally they came into the EEC together with the Republic of Ireland in 1973. The dismantling of the BE in those decades runs parallel to the efforts the UK has taken to become a member of the EEC and it was always for economical reasons, nothing else. Hence the ambivalence of many UK govts before and since being a member.

I think one should realise how much WW II cost the UK and the British Empire. The Americans backed the British against the 3rd Reich, but only the supply of arms, food, etc on a strict cash basis - nothing was given away. After the war came the reckoning and the humiliation of the Bretton Woods Agreement that set up the IMF and the IBRD that passed control of the international monetary system to the Americans and the role of Sterling as a reserve currency ended - or it did following the devaluation of GBP from $4.03 to $2.80.

Because of the devaluation, British exports got less value in dollar terms and so found it difficult to repay their debts to the US. They found they did not have the funds to invest in manufacturing and that the world no longer wanted inferior products that their outdated factories were producing. The loss of India was a huge blow and left the British economy struggling, leading to another devaluation in Nov 1967 - "the pound in your pocket ... etc." despite severe currency exchange restrictions that continued until 1979.

It was joining the EEC that began to refloat the British economy, and the 'Big Bang' (of 1986) removal of many restrictive practices and other oversight restrictions applied to the City of London that lead to the rise of the CoL to become the power house it is. The membership of the EU was very important, and leaving the EU might see its demise. We will see.

The British Empire has seen the sun set, and only exists in the deluded minds of Brexiteers. The Commonwealth might also have ceased to exist in any meaningful economic sense. Australia and NZ are closely working with their neighbours. Canada has a FTA with the EU so that ship has sailed for the UK. India wants unfettered immigration into the UK so we will see how far that gets - so what is left?

Only the Crown Dependency tax havens in the Carribean and the English Channel. Perhaps Trump might off a diet of chlorinated chicken and some GMO food supplements.

Thomas__.

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence.

Did the common wealth ever really function like that?
The empire dictated trade terms (as brexiters believe the EU is doing now) for its own benefit.
As countries broke free one priority was to negotiate trade on their own terms.

All the other large members of the commonwealth exercise independent trade policies - they haven't been waiting around for the last fourty years waiting for the UK to comeback and take charge and to recreate a single market that never really existed.

Thomas__.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. I would presume that this was one of the reasons for the UK govt to apply for EEC Membership which was rejected for a couple of times by France, namely De Gaulle. The UK was offered Membership when the first steps were taken to consitute the forerunner of the EEC, but Attlee declined and the first application for Membership in the EEC was in the 1960s. The UK was nearly desperate then to get into the EEC. Finally they came into the EEC together with the Republic of Ireland in 1973. The dismantling of the BE in those decades runs parallel to the efforts the UK has taken to become a member of the EEC and it was always for economical reasons, nothing else. Hence the ambivalence of many UK govts before and since being a member.

I think one should realise how much WW II cost the UK and the British Empire.  The Americans backed the British against the 3rd Reich, but only the supply of arms, food, etc on a strict cash basis - nothing was given away.  After the war came the reckoning and the humiliation of the Bretton Woods Agreement that set up the IMF and the IBRD that passed control of the international monetary system to the Americans and the role of Sterling as a reserve currency ended - or it did following the devaluation of GBP from $4.03 to $2.80.

Because of the devaluation, British exports got less value in dollar terms and so found it difficult to repay their debts to the US.  They found they did not have the funds to invest in manufacturing and that the world no longer wanted inferior products that their outdated factories were producing.  The loss of India was a huge blow and left the British economy struggling, leading to another devaluation in Nov 1967 - "the pound in your pocket ... etc." despite severe currency exchange restrictions that continued until 1979.

It was joining the EEC that began to refloat the British economy, and the 'Big Bang' (of 1986) removal of many restrictive practices and other oversight restrictions applied to the City of London that lead to the rise of the CoL to become the power house it is.  The membership of the EU was very important, and leaving the EU might see its demise.  We will see.

The British Empire has seen the sun set, and only exists in the deluded minds of Brexiteers.  The Commonwealth might also have ceased to exist in any meaningful economic sense.  Australia and NZ are closely working with their neighbours.  Canada has a  FTA with the EU so that ship has sailed for the UK.   India wants unfettered immigration into the UK so we will see how far that gets - so what is left?

Only the Crown Dependency tax havens in the Carribean and the English Channel.  Perhaps Trump might off a diet of chlorinated chicken and some GMO food supplements.

I know about the debts of the UK after WWII but some passages in your post are still interesting to me. Thanks for that. Either way the UK has put herself on a wrong footing with Brexit and I am convinced that it won't turn out that good as the Brexiteers think.

Thomas__.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence.

Did the common wealth ever really function like that?
The empire dictated trade terms (as brexiters believe the EU is doing now) for its own benefit.
As countries broke free one priority was to negotiate trade on their own terms.

All the other large members of the commonwealth exercise independent trade policies - they haven't been waiting around for the last fourty years waiting for the UK to comeback and take charge and to recreate a  single market that never really existed.

The part in your post highlighted in bold is exactly what the Brexiteers have in mind in regards of new trade deals with the UK in the post-Brexit 'era'. Just nobody would queue up for that, no country with a sane leader would even consider that to get engaged with.

An Ciarraioch

Daniel Hannan is expertly schooled by a Norwegian on the various borders the EU shares with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey:

https://mobile.twitter.com/kirmber2/status/988492502465482757

Leroy42

Now I see that the Express is running the headline that they want to get rid of the House of Lords for the cheek of voting against Brexit.

Now, I have no love of the structure, but Brexit has openly called into question Judges, the House of Lords, MP's right to voice dissent, NI part of the UK and there are probably more that I cannot recall right at the minute.

In addition, Brexit is very likely to increase the changes of Scotland looking for another ref in the near future.

For people that claim that it is all about the UK and taking back control, it seems almost like they are willing to blow the whole thing up on the altar of Brexit.

Thomas__.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now I see that the Express is running the headline that they want to get rid of the House of Lords for the cheek of voting against Brexit.

Now, I have no love of the structure, but Brexit has openly called into question Judges, the House of Lords, MP's right to voice dissent, NI part of the UK and there are probably more that I cannot recall right at the minute.

In addition, Brexit is very likely to increase the changes of Scotland looking for another ref in the near future.

For people that claim that it is all about the UK and taking back control, it seems almost like they are willing to blow the whole thing up on the altar of Brexit.

The Brexiteers are getting more desperate the more time is running out for them and as for Scotland, I have no doubts but are very convinced that there will be an IndyRef2 either in Autum 2018 or around the exit date of the UK in 2019 when the result of the negotiations is settled and clear. The Brexiters have then destroyed the very thing they wanted to preserve, which is the UK itself. Polls on IndyRef2 are going up and down but once the settlement is clear (I reckon with the UK exiting from the EU without a deal) it will certainly tip the balance towards independence.

J Mysterio

It's an absolute disgrace what is going on in Britain. The Home Office has run amok and are treating people like animals. Hostile environment indeed.

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace what is going on in Britain. The Home Office has run amok and are treating people like animals. Hostile environment indeed.

Seems that this will not just be limited to the Windrush generation. I think more stories will come out that this will be for all immigrants to the UK. What guarantee will there be for the EU that UK agencies won't just destroy their documents as well?

Would anyone trust this government to do anything right? They have tried to pass the blame for this scandal to previous governments. You have had people trying to claim that Theresa May was not responsible for any of this, while her fingerprints are all over this. For years they invited this hostility towards their own citizens (these are people who can claim citizenship, they just haven't or when they came over they were citizens) and we should trust them to ensure a welcoming environment to our citizens?

Then we have the government who didn't want to investigate a company on request from France. The emails explaining why doesn't read well from the HMRC.

The UK Refused To Raid A Company Suspected Of Money Laundering, Citing Its Tory Donations

When BuzzFeed News first approached HMRC to ask about its response to the French request, the agency’s senior press officer strongly denied that Lycamobile’s donations would ever be cited as a reason not to conduct criminal raids. “No HMRC official would ever write such a letter,” he said. “This is the United Kingdom for God’s sake, not some third world banana republic where the organs of state are in hock to some sort of kleptocracy.”

However, after verifying the contents of the email seen by BuzzFeed News, another HMRC spokesman said that it was “regrettable”.

This is the UK envisaged by Brexiteers though. Low tax, low regulation. This will be a UK where corporations will be allowed to run over their employees without any concerns for laws or regulations. This will be a UK where political donations will ensure that a blind eye will be shown if you donate to the right people. This is the UK waiting is hard Brexit is allowed.

EdgeCase

Of course it's not a banana republic! It's more likely to be a constitutional banana monarchy!

I think we are finally starting to see some of the more toxic aspects of the UK political system coming to the fore. It's probably been rated as far less corrupt than it actually is.

Remember, a lot of the "corruption indices" we use are actually "corruption PERCEPTION indices" that are often more about how a country perceives itself and how it's perceived by the business community members who were interviewed. They are not usually scientific measurements, but are highly subjective and based on opinions. It's quite difficult to gather accurate information on corruption, particularly softer forms and more complex forms. Also, one person's lobbying and business-friendly environment is another person's rotten corruption. There's a perceptual issue there too. I think the UK may have been rating itself as a lot more squeaky clean than reality would seem to suggest.

Enzokk

And in other news, Jacob-Rees Mogg has chipped in on the customs proposals from the UK government so far. He has been less than pleased about the talk of the UK staying in the customs union, to prevent a border that is.

Theresa May’s plan for a post-Brexit customs deal has been labelled ‘completely cretinous’ by Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The leading backbench Brexiteer ridiculed the Prime Minister’s proposal to collect tariffs on behalf of the EU as pressure grew in Cabinet for her to dump the idea.

Rees-Mogg also lashed out at the House of Lords for trying to keep the UK in a customs union, warning that they were ‘playing with fire’ as unelected peers and risked ‘burning down an historic House’.

Theresa May Post-Brexit Customs Plan Is ‘Completely Cretinous’, Jacob Rees-Mogg Says

But he is all talk once again without giving a solution. Other than threatening Ireland with a 70% tariff on beef that is.

Rees-Mogg also ramped up his warning that if the Republic of Ireland and Brussels failed to sort a good deal for the UK, London could slap tariffs of up to 70% on the Irish beef industry and ‘bankrupt’ it.

“If we were to apply the common external tariff on Irish beef, the Irish agricultural industry is in serious trouble,” he said.

Earlier this week, the EU’s Agriculture Commissioner and former Irish politician Phil Hogan said: “That’s why we’re very pleased in the European Union that we’re dealing with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, not with Mr. Rees-Mogg.”

ambro25

J Mysterio wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace what is going on in Britain. The Home Office has run amok and are treating people like animals. Hostile environment indeed.

Said it before, and I might be rambling but...there's nothing new about this latest one, or the Windrush lot before her for that matter.

This lady's situation, and the Windrush situation of the past week or so, are just the latest, and most high-profile, in what is actually a very long litany of similar cases since 2010 and May's hostile environment.

And it certainly won't be the last either, mark my words.

Out of 3m EU immigrants, considering (i) the thousands of mistakes already made to date, (ii) the timescale to Brexit and (iii) the governements' track record on IT projects (spend/delivery date/fitness for purpose), tens of thousands at least of settled EU immigrants have got the same coming their way (when they're not on the receiving end already).

A sad, very sad state of affairs, and that particular issue weighed non-trivially in my decision to leave the UK.

Sand

I've said it before, I don't understand the media fixation with a customs union as regards the Irish border. Unless Northern Ireland, or the UK as a whole, commits to retaining membership of the single market with all that entails then there will be a border that has to be enforced. The UK fixation with a customs union reminds me of their fixation in late 2017 with the amount of the 'divorce' bill. Anything to avoid recognising the real issue: the Irish border. It was the problem in 2017, its the problem in 2018.

ambro25 wrote: »

A sad, very sad state of affairs, and that particular issue weighed non-trivially in my decision to leave the UK.

The purpose of the hostile environment is to weight on the minds of undocumented migrants in the UK and encourage them to leave. If you were considering them, then its reasonable to presume those who are being targeted by them are also considering them. They are the sort of measures the UK government could have taken decades ago without any EU objection. They deliberately chose not to. The UK government is in its own way demonstrating that the EU is not an impediment to having a policy on migration.

ambro25

Sand wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

A sad, very sad state of affairs, and that particular issue weighed non-trivially in my decision to leave the UK.

The purpose of the hostile environment is to weight on the minds of undocumented migrants in the UK and encourage them to leave. If you were considering them, then its reasonable to presume those who are being targeted by them are also considering them. They are the sort of measures the UK government could have taken decades ago without any EU objection. They deliberately chose not to. The UK government is in its own way demonstrating that the EU is not an impediment to having a policy on migration.

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xx,xxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...and now it's getting 100% of nothing from me and still 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted. Now extrapolate to the portion of fellow 'fleeing brains' amongst the 3m EU immigrants.

I suppose May and Rudd might call that a result. Not so sure about Hammond, though :pac:

Sand

ambro25 wrote: »

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xxxxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...and now it's getting 100% of nothing from me and still 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted.

I suppose May and Rudd might call that a result. Not so sure about Hammond, though :pac:

Perhaps, but lets face it you left because you saw the prospects for your field of work being particularly grim within the UK, and you've probably secured a pay rise out of it too, in real terms if nothing else given the GBPs decline. Your departure is a product of the economic prospects of the UK, not a causal factor in them.

The hostile environment is aimed at undocumented migrants who are a drain on the UK economy, not a boon despite the propaganda. And lets face it, the UK is country, not a corporation or an anarcho-capitalist economic zone. So it will do things that make little economic sense, like fight wars, care for the elderly and protect its borders. And its a country which could, and should, have implemented a migration policy long before 2010.

Leroy42

It really is quite staggering that the likes of JRM are able to make such a mockery of May and face zero consequences.

She is so unbelievably weak.

listermint

ambro25 wrote: »

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xx,xxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...and now it's getting 100% of nothing from me and still 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted. Now extrapolate to the portion of fellow 'fleeing brains' amongst the 3m EU immigrants.

I suppose May and Rudd might call that a result. Not so sure about Hammond, though :pac:

Indeed hostile environments are welcomed by the educated and mobile. They just love it.

Sand

Leroy42 wrote: »

It really is quite staggering that the likes of JRM are able to make such a mockery of May and face zero consequences.

She is so unbelievably weak.

The most damning indictment of her rivals is that none of them have been able or willing to remove her yet. There simply isnt anything better for rebels to rally around. It is a generation of political pygmies in the UK.

LeinsterDub

A spokeswoman for the Britain's Department for Exiting the European Union said of the lack of notification: "This was an administrative oversight for which we are happy to apologise."

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0424/956901-david-davis/

Brexit in a nutshell?

The department for planning Brexit and as such the Irish border couldn't even organise a trip to it let alone a frictionless border. Perhaps they'll administratively forgot to leave the customs union and accidentally solve their own problemm

ambro25

Sand wrote: »

Perhaps, but lets face it you left because you saw the prospects for your field of work being particularly grim within the UK, and you've probably secured a pay rise out of it too, in real terms if nothing else given the GBPs decline. Your departure is a product of the economic prospects of the UK, not a causal factor in them.

On a timescale and replicated at scale, it is both: mine and the departures of enough others pre-, during and post-Brexit, eventually turn those currently-perceived economic prospects into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sand wrote: »

And lets face it, the UK is country, not a corporation or an anarcho-capitalist economic zone. So it will do things that make little economic sense, like fight wars, care for the elderly and protect its borders.

I prefer logic: how shall the UK continue to do all those things at their current (slowly falling/failing) level, with a falling balance sheet?

Sand wrote: »

And its a country which could, and should, have implemented a migration policy long before 2010.

It's had plenty of those since before 2010: the PBS applicable to non-EU immigrants was introduced by Labour in 2008, and I'd argue that the UK's laissez-faire approach to EU immigration (evidenced e.g. by the absence of brake on accession states' migrants, amongst so many other manifestations) was policy.

Thargor

Enzokk wrote: »

And in other news, Jacob-Rees Mogg has chipped in on the customs proposals from the UK government so far. He has been less than pleased about the talk of the UK staying in the customs union, to prevent a border that is.



Theresa May Post-Brexit Customs Plan Is ‘Completely Cretinous’, Jacob Rees-Mogg Says

But he is all talk once again without giving a solution. Other than threatening Ireland with a 70% tariff on beef that is.

I seem to remember way back in the good old days up to 2016 if any member of any party used the word "Cretinous" within 100 miles of the party leader then that would be the end of their career but obviously Theresa May feels so secure in her position that she can ignore these little humiliations

Lemming

Sand wrote: »

The hostile environment is aimed at undocumented migrants who are a drain on the UK economy, not a boon despite the propaganda.

What the hostile environment policy is "aimed at" and what it has thus far "hit" are two wildly different beasts. You don't drop a nuke on a car in the middle of a city to kill one person and say "oops, it clearly works because we got x, honest guvna!" with any degree of credibility. The hostile environment policy has shown itself unfit for purpose and long may it cause the Tories a lot of very sticky mud. Labour wont be escaping that either as I intend to remind my local MP on her party's vote count on the subject.

To be perfectly frank Sand, there's a voice at the back of my mind saying "will this be me in 30/40 years?" because when I moved to the UK there was no proof of anything required. So how do I prove anything in a reliable manner? Times that by 3 million and you have the potential for an utter and total hairy sh1t show of epic proportions. And that's just for the legal migrants who don't have this travesty "aimed" at them.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

What the hostile environment policy is "aimed at" and what it has thus far "hit" are two wildly different beasts. You don't drop a nuke on a car in the middle of a city to kill one person and say "oops, it clearly works because we got x, honest guvna!" with any degree of credibility. The hostile environment policy has shown itself unfit for purpose and long may it cause the Tories a lot of very sticky mud. Labour wont be escaping that either as I intend to remind my local MP on her party's vote count on the subject.

To be perfectly frank Sand, there's a voice at the back of my mind saying "will this be me in 30/40 years?" because when I moved to the UK there was no proof of anything required. So how do I prove anything in a reliable manner? Times that by 3 million and you have the potential for an utter and total hairy sh1t show of epic proportions. And that's just for the legal migrants who don't have this travesty "aimed" at them.

Yep. This. I remember moving to the UK on March 2011. Wave of the passport to an officer at Birmingham International was the height of it. Even registering for NHS services has been easy save for when they've been snippy about online statements.

Meanwhile, the pro-Brexit wing of the Conservative party continues to grow ever more feral which sets a dangerous precedent as I believe some sort of Eurosceptic opinion is necessary to scrutinise the EU, especially the Commission and legislation. Instead of measured criticism, we got Nigel Farage, Daniel Hannan & Jacob Rees-Mogg, the gift that keeps on giving:

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/988756522162425856

Capt'n Midnight

There have been challenges to this bill, but like the snoopers charter it doesn't inspire confidence in the governments attitude.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/uk_government_legal_challenge_immigration_exemption_data_protection_bill/

Campaign groups have increased pressure on the UK government to remove a section of the Data Protection Bill that could effectively prevent people gaining access to immigration data held on them.

Blowfish

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There have been challenges to this bill, but like the snoopers charter it doesn't inspire confidence in the governments attitude.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/uk_government_legal_challenge_immigration_exemption_data_protection_bill/

They seem absolutely clueless about the potential consequences to stuff like this. It moves them further away from being aligned with GDPR and if the European Commission finds it's too far away from it, the UK won't qualify for an 'adequacy' decision which will cause chaos for a huge amount of businesses when it comes to cross border data transfer.

EdgeCase

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yep. This. I remember moving to the UK on March 2011. Wave of the passport to an officer at Birmingham International was the height of it. Even registering for NHS services has been easy save for when they've been snippy about online statements.

From an Irish perspective, that's what worries me about this whole thing. The Windrush people and the Canadian woman who received deportation orders all arrived under pretty similar circumstances to an Irish person entering with the CTA. They were entitled to permanent residency without any issues due to their then status under older arrangements.

What's to stop the UK Government in a future fit of jingoism turning around and saying that Irish people in the UK are no longer welcome? The CTA is only based in acts of parliament, custom and precedent. It isn't even a bilateral treaty.

They could change residency requirements at a whim just like they change everything else at a whim and without any roadmap, warning or anything else.

It's a totally unpredictable place, whether you're a resident from another country or a business trying to operate out of it. They're behaving like some kind of crack pot authoritarian state that seems to be operating on the basis of "l'etat c'est moi" rather than any kind of sane rule of law when it comes to just chopping and changing policies on external affairs, immigration and trade.

The way rules are being changed without any kind of predictability reminds me more of something you'd see in Russia than a developed and stable western democracy where sane policy and fairness is seen as rather important. What's been going on with the Home Office is like some kind of weird politicised bureaucratic bullying you'd see in an authoritarian state.

It is shocking to see this kind of thing in the UK in 2018 and I am really appalled at just how low the Tories have dragged what is, in normal circumstances, a very sane country.

"Creating a hostile environment" could equally mean "instilling, facilitating and supporting a culture of institutional xenophobia"

As above when I moved to the UK the only proof the state had of my residence was my natiinal insurance and tax details. Nothing formal about my status. Being a young lad and not planning on staying for long I wasn't bothered but a colleague who was active in the Labour party recommended that I formalize my position if I wanted to settle there. Looking back he was right and I would recommend that any Irish person living in the UK establish their right to do so formally.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xx,xxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...

No. Those targeted were paying tax on exactly the same basis as you.

J Mysterio

UK among worst in Western Europe for freedom of press after 'staggering decline', Reporters Without Borders index claims

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xx,xxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...

No. Those targeted were paying tax on exactly the same basis as you.

Do you therefore believe that most illegal immigrants in the U.K. (those ‘targeted’ in the context posited by Sand) are declared as employees by their employers and pay income tax and NI contributions?

Or was your post rethorical (unusually for you, whence I missed it) - alternatively, in need of a bit of caveating?

Sam Russell

I heard on Ch 4 News last night a comment that the fees for the various paperwork to get the Right to Remain certification was 'many thousands'. Is that the case?

Edit: Just checked - yes the fees are in the thousands - see here.

Will these fees apply after Brexit for UK citizens that are currently in the EU ? I can see some outrage if they do.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

Do you therefore believe that most illegal immigrants in the U.K. (those ‘targeted’ in the context posited by Sand) are declared as employees by their employers and pay income tax and NI contributions?

Or was your post rethorical (unusually for you, whence I missed it) - alternatively, in need of a bit of caveating?

No caveating needed. The "hostile environment" policy targets not illegal immigrants but - as Sand correctly says - undocumented immigrants. The distinction is crucial. The Windrush generation are not illegal immigrants - in many cases they are British Citizens, in other cases they are Commonwealth citizens with settled status, or indefinite leave to remain. But they don't have the documentation to prove it; they are undocumented. Hence their problems.

And, regardless of whether we are discussing illegal or undocumented migrants, do I think that most of them are in "legit" jobs, paying tax and social insurance? Absolutely, yes, I do, and so does the British government. A policy which depends on employers verifying migration status obviously assumes those employers are legit; employers who don't deduct tax or national insurance are also not going to do migration checks. This policy makes obtaining or keeping a legitimate, taxpaying, insurance-paying job conditional on demonstrating your immigration status. It is absolutely aimed at people in, or seeking, legitimate jobs.

And why wouldn't illegal immigrants be in legitimate jobs? If you assume they have come to the UK seeking economic advantage, legitimate jobs generally pay far better, and offer better prospects of training, advancement, career progression, etc, plus of course they qualify you for benefits and a pension. Obviously if you want to improve your economic situation you will prefer a legitimate job to a black market job. And if employers aren't required to verify immigration status (as they weren't, before the "hostile environment" policy) then what would deter an illegal immigrant from seeking one?

Lookit, many of the Windrush generation lost their legitimate jobs because they couldn't verify their immigration status. Doesn't that fact along tell you that this policy was targetted at people in legitimate jobs?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

As above when I moved to the UK the only proof the state had of my residence was my natiinal insurance and tax details. Nothing formal about my status. Being a young lad and not planning on staying for long I wasn't bothered but a colleague who was active in the Labour party recommended that I formalize my position if I wanted to settle there. Looking back he was right and I would recommend that any Irish person living in the UK establish their right to do so formally.

How, as a matter of interest, did you "formalise your position"?

Alun

Regarding lack of evidence of residence status, it's not that different here. I'm a UK citizen living here since 2001 who is thinking of applying for Irish citizenship, and the only way of proving residence seems to be providing piles of bank statements and utility bills.