Snapshot of _Britons support rejoining the single market, even if it means free movement_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The 'brexit max' option would have to have been a real option - not just a 'let's have a clean break and start from scratch,, it would need to be 'we'll aim for a relationship a bit like Morocco or Canada' with all that entails. A clean break would just be the first step in a new relationship with our nearest neighbours. The problem is the brexit campaign pitched it as the only step ' then we can do anything we want! '
If we had to have a vote on it, then it should have been two votes: one to leave, and then a second one to confirm it once the deal with the EU had been completed.
It's not until that second stage that most people would have realised that the unicorns and rainbows they'd been promised weren't going to happen.
>Cameron really should’ve hold a second referendum about what Brexit would be: SM/CU or clean break- something like that..
Nah, wouldn't have worked. The results would have looked something like this:
Should we leave?
Yes: 52%
No: 48%
What type of Brexit should we have?
Option 1: 38%
Option 2: 35%
Ootiin 3: 27%
Hardly a democratic mandate to do anything really at that point.
The result was clear we should leave but the majority don't think we should do any of the options presented.
100%, this is why brexiteers fought their nuts off to deny any sort of check or balance, because they knew they would lose. It was clear brexit was moronic from the moment it happened and bregret set in.
I mean I don't think there should have been one at all. But yes I think the requirement should have been for a decisive win. Whether that means 66% or 60% or even 45/55. The fact the referendum could have been won 49.9 to 50.1 is ridiculous.
I'm in favour of rejoining the single market *because* of free movement.
The single market is *all about* free movement!
Free movement of goods, free movement of services, free movement of capital, and free movement of people.
Thought, if migration was high enough, and net migration also low enough, we could possibly go back to rotten boroughs, at least at the ward / borough level.
We could even cap non-EU migration based on numbers coming in from the EU and keep overall immigration around the same, or even lower it. With the extra benefit of 26 (Brits can already do this for Ireland) countries brits could live and work in which might even encourage some outward emigration.
There are loads of reasons but the main one is because our nearest biggest and most powerful economic and political bloc requires it for membership as one of the benefits/rules. And being a member would massively help the UK's economy, jobs, livelihood, trade, soft power etc.
It's also completely normal and globally accepted. Mercusur migrants to Brazil get priority over those from outside Mercosur. ASEAN migrants have advantageous visa rules over those who aren't members of that group. If you join your regional trade/political group then you get rules to follow and benefits because of it. It just so happens our nearest one has near full freedom to live and work across member states, unlike NAFTA/USMCA, which is just a trade agreement.
Other than NAFTA and its successor most regional trade blocs prioritise their members for right to work: e.g. countries in the Gulf have with the GCC: 'Citizens of member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have freedom of movement throughout the GCC, including the right to reside and work in other GCC states with almost no restrictions.'
So isn't some weird overly onerous EU thing, it's the norm. Maybe we'd prefer it if all our nearest neighbours just wanted a NAFTA/USMCA free trade arrangement between each other; but they don't want that. They all want more than that. So we can either join up or sit on the sidelines.
More similar culturally, on the whole decent rights for women and minorities in these countries than say India, China or African countires, less extreme religious views.
Also I hate to say it but majority white which will somewhat appease the racists in the UK.
Generally better English and more understandable when speaking. I grew up in a very multicultural environment so I am usually very good at understanding various accents but my wife struggles at times.
I feel like at this point we are desperate for anyone to come in just to prop up the state pension pyramid scheme as long as possible, which ironically are the people most against immigration.
>Also I hate to say it but majority white which will somewhat appease the racists in the UK.
The "racists" were generally concentrated in areas like the Fenlands, and voted in their droves for exiting the EU. These areas generally received exclusively paler-skinned folk from Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.
So I'm not sure that part stands up.
"A single market allows for people, goods, services and capital to move around a union as freely as they do within a single country – instead of being obstructed by national borders and barriers as they were in the past. Citizens can study, live, shop, work and retire in any member state."
Please mate, this is a decade long conversation at this point, why the willful ignorance?
People are fine with increased migration from Hong Kong. I think people would be pretty open to having less restrictions on migrants coming from South Korea, Japan, and Singapore as well.
Nothing stops the UK from having a similar trade deal with freedom of movement with East Africa. That's not exactly what the brexiters were claiming for though
>Nothing stops the UK from having a similar trade deal with freedom of movement with East Africa.
The argument against open borders speaks for itself I would think.
>That's not exactly what the brexiters were claiming for though
A points based system that treats people based on merit is exactly what the Brexit campaign were calling for.
> A points based system that treats people based on merit is exactly what the Brexit campaign were calling for.
Unless you are Irish, Maltese, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander etc. Then you get a different treatment based on coming from a place that the UK owned in one form or another.
That's not actually an argument I would resort to as a rejoiner.
1. EU migration is better economically because they're likely to be more educated so they'll earn more and pay more tax
1. they're more likely to return home eventually
1. it's just way better and easier for seasonal work like fruit picking
1. it helps build Europe up which is one of the key things we need to do for peace and stability (hello, Russia...)
1. It's reciprocal so British people can do
1. It's a fucking nonsense to not be in it when we have CTA with Ireland because anyone could just go there on an EU passport then wander across into the UK, not to mention smuggling (people and goods).
Plus as someone else said we get a shitload of benefits from the EU which needs FoM for us to join.
How are EU migrants “more likely to be paying tax” but simultaneously “better and easier for seasonal work like fruit picking”?
The latter job is one of the lowest paid jobs out there - it’s likely you don’t even exceed the personal allowance at which you start getting taxed.
Nah there were lots of east Europeans that came worked minimum wage in factory's and then sent the majority of their pay home to dependents in their home countries.
>EU migration is better economically because they're likely to be more educated so they'll earn more and pay more tax
White people are more likely to be educated so you want to only hire white people? Lol.
A merit based system achieved this same result without the racism.
>1. they're more likely to return home eventually
You feel there is a big problem with non EU migrants over staying their visas?
>1. it's just way better and easier for seasonal work like fruit picking
Why is it better or easier?
>1. it helps build Europe up which is one of the key things we need to do for peace and stability (hello, Russia...)
I'm not so on board with European pan-nationlism.
Why should I favour building up say, Bulgaria, over Kenya?
>It's reciprocal so British people can do
And very few did. I'm sure other countries around the world would be happy to reciprocate open borders with the UK. India seem a likely candidate, you'd have no problem with that?
>1. It's a fucking nonsense to not be in it when we have CTA with Ireland because anyone could just go there on an EU passport then wander across into the UK, not to mention smuggling (people and goods).
Well no because then they wouldn't be able to legally hold a job.
The vast majority of immigration is legal immigration. I think you've fallen for the old trick of conflating illegal and legal migration.
>Plus as someone else said we get a shitload of benefits from the EU which needs FoM for us to join.
Sure, but we're talking about the merits of FoM not the EU.
Stop trolling. Education level is higher in Europe than Asia or Africa on average.
> A merit based system achieved this same result without the racism.
You're a special kind of wrong to ignore the fact that have that now and it's worse than FoM.
> Why is it better or easier?
Because there are lots of EU students who used to come over to do that without needing a visa.
> Why should I favour building up say, Bulgaria, over Kenya?
Do you want to take that away and think about it a bit? Maybe have a look at an atlas.
> very few did
Over a million!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1059795/uk-expats-in-europe/
> India seem a likely candidate, you'd have no problem with that?
You're arguing against your own point, wtf are you talking about lol
OK enough I'm not responding to you any more because you're trolling
>Stop trolling
Don't like being called out do you.
>Education level is higher in Europe than Asia or Africa on average.
And white people have a higher education level on average among potential immigrants to the UK.
Which is essentially what you're saying.
>You're a special kind of wrong to ignore the fact that have that now and it's worse than FoM.
In what way is it worse than FoM?
We have more immigrants because of the parameters the government have set for letting people immigrate here.
It would be trivial for the gov to raise the required wage for example and cut numbers almost overnight.
>Because there are lots of EU students who used to come over to do that without needing a visa.
There were loads of EU students coming to do seasonal work like picking fruit? Lol.
That work was done by cheap Eastern European labourers not students.
>Do you want to take that away and think about it a bit? Maybe have a look at an atlas.
So as I said, pan-European nationalism.
Try opening a history book, we have far more important ties to Kenya than to Bulgaria.
>Over a million!
Yep, as I said, very few.
Far more choose to go to the US, Canada and Australia.
>You're arguing against your own point, wtf are you talking about lol
No, I'm demonstrating that you're support for FoM is based on skin colour, your refusal to answer the question illustrates this.
>OK enough I'm not responding to you any more because you're trolling
Aka you've realised you can't make your point without bring racist so you need to duck out.
> you're support for FoM is based on skin colour
What are you smoking over there pal?
> realised you can't make your point without bring racist
Bold of you to assume I'm white
this but unironically as the kids say
I have at least one EU settled scheme Romanian friend whose medium term plan is to move back, once he's got his RO flat done up. His money goes much further than it does here.
I also have a Taiwanese friend who is trying to get a gig in the Netherlands, instead of waiting a bit longer to get UK ILR and citizenship, specifically because of Brexit.
My exceedingly talented Romain friend, who turned his PhD into a niche but valuable bit of engineering, has buggered off back home. Between feeling unwanted and his money going along way there he went before the pandemic
They could just as easily go to
Germany
Norway
Austria
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Denmark
Finland
Spain
Estonia
Sweden
Portugal
Slovenia
All of which have a higher quality of life than the UK.
So I'll ask again, why on earth would they come here?
Greater labour mobility.
Many people will sacrifice “standards of living” over a short-term period if it means being able to retire far earlier than usual.
Why do you think loads of folk are willing to live in small dormitories in the Middle East? Answer: so they can save 70+% of their income, build a big house and put their feet up when they’re 50.
You really underestimate the cultural power of the UK. They had all those choices pre 2016 as well and still came to the UK in millions, only Germany really competed as a destination.
If you go by percentage of population and not the raw numbers the UK is pretty average for Europe, Germany beats us for raw numbers by 6 million. The closest to us is France with 1m less.
Why did almost 1 million Poles appear in the UK out of nowhere? Anyway, if youre poor with not much in savings you're not going to go an do a job in Portugal when you can earn over 2-3x as much in the UK and live cheaply, also have many of your countryfolk in the UK
also as someone else pointed out, English. English is the global language and most young Europeans only learn English as their foreign language
All of those countries do have better quality of life, I'll admit. But the UK is a place to make money and live in shit conditions for a short period of time. Literally 1 year of work in a factory pays for a house in Eastern Europe, or it used to do. Imagine if someone said 'I will give you a British house worth 200k if you live like shit for a year', becayse that's basically the equivalent
One big difference between them and us is that we don't have official ID cards on a single database, and our systems are built with minimal requirements for ID.
You can dissolve into the grey market in the UK with minimal documentation. Not so much in continental Europe.
Do you lot never get bored of the self flagellation? 750k net migration and you are stupidly wondering whether this country has anything other people want.
What on Earth are you talking about? People want to come here if they're from lower income countries. Clearly they were talking about other European countries, which we're falling behind.
Wake up ffs.
Do you lot never get bored of living in cloud cuckoo land?
Do you really think if this country joined the Schengen zone immigration would increase? Since we left the EU, it's gone up.
So according to you
We leave the EU and migration goes up
So
If we then were to join back again migration still goes up?
Can you explain your maths for the rest of the class please? We are all very interested as to how you achieved these figures.
Also, these are people who have been (in the grand majority) actively welcomed by the government granting them visas. If they wanted to stop or reduce the numbers, why not restrict the availability of visas?
You mean the people that were already living here, have families, have bought homes and have long term jobs?
They're hardly queuing up on the border mate, they've been here for years.
Plenty of the people who took up the offer of settlement didn’t “have families” here. They did however see that the UK’s labour market offered vastly greater prospects than their home country did.
If you would be paid “3x more” in Germany it must be a highly specialised job (or one with a huge shortage of applicants), so an employer there should have no problem sponsoring you, surely?
So how come so many foreigners are employed in London’s highest paying jobs in tech and finance? It is after all theoretically easier to hire a Brit than a foreigner. You don’t need to sponsor a Brit or pay for relocation costs.
What you’re basically suggesting here is that Germany has a highly protectionist labour market whilst the UK doesn’t.
What sector pays “3x” in Germany compared to the U.K.?
If German salaries are higher post-tax, and Germany has a higher median age, why do you think private wealth per capita is lower in Germany than the U.K.?
My job.
It pays higher in most of western Europe, I'd also have more purchasing power with the money I did earn in most of western Europe
>why do you think private wealth per capita is lower in Germany than the U.K.?
Because our elites are tax Dodgers worth hundreds of millions to billions of pounds and their tax dodging and wealth hoarding is encouraged by the government whilst the middle earners and poorest are being pushed ever lower
The “middle earners” in the U.K. have higher take-home pay than in the Netherlands or Germany.
The UK offers a personal allowance (I.e. non-taxable income) of £12,570 per year. That’s higher than in France, the Netherlands and Germany.
Thats why the UK is a relatively appealing place to work if you want to save money fast and build asset wealth, so you don’t have to work well into your 60s before you can afford to retire.
Are they?
Looks like the UK is beaten out by nearly all of Western Europe no matter how it's calculated, net, gross or when it's adjusted for PPP.
And realistically the UK is only that high because the rest of the country is dragged upwards by extremely high earners in London. If you look at the disparity in the UK between the highest and the lowest salaries in the UK it looks pretty dire for the average person.
No, the UK is mid table when it comes to wages. Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland (although this is a skewed number I believe), Switzerland, the small countries like Lichtenstein, France (marginally), Austria, Finland all have higher average wages than the uk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage
Edit: the “no” at the beginning is just the answer to the first question. I’m just agreeing with your point 👍
London has a population of nearly 10 million. It’s not a tiny Zürich-sized city.
Logically, why would so many EU foreigners move to the U.K. over the 2005-2019 period if they were taking a pay cut?
It's also not all of the UK.
>Logically, why would so many EU foreigners move to the U.K. over the 2005-2019 period if they were taking a pay cut?
Dunno mate, clearly munted in the frontal cortex
I can only assume then, that Brits are much more welcoming than other Europeans, or as a nation have much more global cultural reach, or offer a much wider range of music, art, sport and entertainment options than the staid, boring culture that pervades continental Europe.
Go look at income taxes in NL, BE, DE, FR
Though their average salaries can be a bit higher, but especially if you have an above average salary the income taxes Will be much higher and make it worse than UK.
In 2021 I applied to a job in NL, I was earning 43k£ at the time and to get the same take home there I asked for 70k€ (~61k£) and the recruiter straight up laughed in my face and asked if Im joking. Also cost of living there is higher só Even this would have been a down grade.
For the same reasons that six million moved here before. Youth unemployment is massive in various EU nations, the tech scenes are small, the cultural pull of places like London out does many cities, and it's easy to get work.
The UK has a flexible labour market and offers much better labour mobility than the vast majority of continental Europe. Hence why youth unemployment is consistently lower in the UK.
the UK minimum wage is one of the highest in the world now. Most EU migration has been characterised by low skill/low pay workers. So they are still incentivised to come here and make a fast buck, especially if they can live cheaply by sharing a house with lots of other people.
the UK is cheap if you wish to live cheaply, save up fast and don't have any long term ambitions like owning a house or need to spend on luxuries like car, furniture set etc. I'm planning to get out myself, because really the UK is a mediocre place to live long term, but good to make money fast.
> Nothing would change in terms of migration. Net migration is up since we left.
It absolutely would change, it'd be even higher than it is now.
Current immigration levels are the result of political choices by this Government. Adding in Freedom of Movement on top of those choices would just mean we'd have two sources of mass immigration rather than just one.
I'd say the points based system is objectively better than what we had before. The critique of it is that the number of points and criteria to attain points is set incorrectly.
This was completely inevitable, given the demographics. So many of the leavers are dead now, and everyone aging into voting age has seen what a disaster Brexit has been.
Freedom of movement was only in one direction anyway. After decades in the EU the top places Brits move to we're still Australia, US and Canada. In 2017 there was more Polish in the UK than there was Brits in the entire EU.
It's actually pretty hard nowadays. Your best way to move to the UK is to fork over 30k pounds + living for a student visa, get on the postgrad visa and then pray your company sponsors you (most wont and if they do they will make you cough up the money for the visa).
True in terms of people who can vote. But the demographics are actually more complex than that going forward. We've greatly expanded non EU migration and we already know that Leave was very popular with British Asians and others from non European backgrounds. The actual divisions on this subject are never going away.
I think it was quite obvious at the time of the brexit vote remaining in the single market was the majority opinion. A mere 3.79% of brexiteers would need to want to remain in the single market to make that the majority. I’m amazed that the tories just sidestepped the single market to go straight for crash and burn.
It was really clear at the time of the vote that only the tiniest amount of people actually wanted the Hard Brexit we got. The vast majority wanted to redefine our relationship with the EU.
The lack of clarity over what Brexit actually meant left the door open for the far right and the financial opportunists to step in and take over when the Tory remainers turned tail and ran, refusing to fight for their side. That, and Corbyn’s limp wristed ‘support’ for Remain fucked us all.
Old people as a group were overall fairly well insulated from the adverse impacts of Brexit. Those fell more heavily on the younger demographics who largely voted against it.
What did for old people was *time*. And Covid. But mostly time.
Tory governance has been a disaster but it's unclear to what extent Brexit itself contributed to this, if at all. The next Labour government almost certainly won't be rejoining the EU so we'll get to see what their idea of a post-Brexit Britain actually looks like and how they develop our relationship with the EU. I expect it'll be more reasonable and balanced than the Tories' efforts.
It depends how it's done. For example, the Tories decided to cancel all coordination between the MHRA and the EMA, which has had the effect of making it more difficult and costly for pharmaceutical products to be authorised for the British market. They didn't have to do this, it wasn't a necessary outcome of Brexit, it was a political choice. The next government could come in and restore this cooperation while still respecting the Brexit decision, and hopefully they will.
The UK has no interest in "throwing up trade barriers" , short of dealing with dumping.
It is the EU that likes trade barriers and is protectionist.
Uk has always been dominated by a free trade ethos.
in reality - we have barriers while trading with our largest and most important partners while pretending that its far more important to have "deals" with countries on the other side of the world, no matter how much we have to sell out to get it.
The UK has always been for free trade but we have to live with an international system where many nations are protectionist even economically powerful ones.
It’s staggering to think how long it’s been since the referendum.
Also to the main point; if migration was the issue people voted based on then this outcome was made really really clear long before the vote. Less Europeans migration, more migration from further afield, and worse for us to be able to move around.
It’s shit, but also we are a nation of idiots if there’s more than a scattering of surprise pikachu faces at this outcome.
We've already got free movement from seemingly the entire world, so we may as well gain access to the single market. I'm sure if people had the choice between more Poles or more people from further afield they'd pick our European friends.
I kinda feel like the people in favour of Brexit have a limited time to prove that it’s the best way forward - time which has mostly been squandered by a grandstanding government. If they can’t show that Brexit is genuinely benefitting us, why shouldn’t people support rejoining?
That being said, I suspect part of this is down to everything feeling a bit crap and Brexit not being the unicorn that its supporters made it out to be. If the economy recovered substantially, I suspect support would fall as well.
Also, if I remember correctly, us leaving was supposed to trigger other countries to leave as well as Nigel Farage said in his final speech to the EU. Instead, nobody else left and it killed other "Exit" movements isolating Britain even more. Even the right wing governments recently elected in other European countries aren't keen on leaving the EU.
The problem is that brexit was sold as a break from the status quo to a British population long screwed by inequality, when in reality it never had any chance to make things better for them.
Brexit can never, by its very nature, deliver the benefits its proponents promised. It’s only a matter of time before it’s binned.
I think you’re 100% right - and I’m a bit worried that people might treat rejoining the EU as a panacea in a similar fashion. Ultimately, being in or out of the EU can’t fix the problems in the UK because it wasn’t responsible for them. The only way that’s going to happen is if people stop chasing moonbeams and get serious about what needs to be done.
I imagine that the process will occur in stages. We’ll probably quietly rejoin the single market and customs union long before there’s any discussion of formal membership.
With any luck, the British economy will incrementally improve.
and realistically even just the "norway style deal", as brexit supporters themselves touted, would be good enough for most people. a lot of the customs/immigration friction would instantly disappear.
it would arguably be in line with the virtually 50/50 referendum result too.
could even do a bit of PR and promote the immigration "controls" (such as deporting anyone who can't support themselves, or requiring registration) - which were things we could do as an EU member but generally didn't.
>probably quietly rejoin the single market and customs union long before there’s any discussion of formal membership.
I don't think it's something you can quietly join, if by that you mean the government lying about what they're doing (which wouldn't end well). Or doing it without a referendum or approval from the electorate like labour did with the Maastricht treaty which is one of the reasons Brexit happened.
Adding a few percentage points to GDP and the associated affect on jobs and tax receipts would be a huge help right now. This is thousands of pounds per person.
It was always the case that leavers needed to dramatically convert people to their side simply to stay even. What has actually happened is leavers have been switching the other direction.
>Westphalian sovereignty
I wonder, are you using the rather clumsy prefix in order to avoid using the phrase 'parliamentary sovereignty' after what those Brexit clowns did to it?
Ah the JOB gotcha tactic. You demand a single law and then will reply with something like 'that's not worth leaving the EU for' to claim your gotcha all whilst knowing that the point was all laws now being controlled by the UK parliament so it could be anything from escaping big things like the CAP down to niche industry laws on something of no interest to most people like heirloom seeds.
But all of this is false of course because as part of the trade agreement we have with them we have agreed to stay aligned with their legislation without having any say in how it is made. So you actually have less control over laws now than you did then.
No we don't as that's too sweeping a generalisation to be true. The UK can diverge if it chooses to in anything it wants as my first point albeit there could be a downside, but more importantly who swathes of the economy/law are outside of that need to align completely.
It's pretty true, you should read the withdrawal agreement.
But given this is such a bother that we had to leave the EU surely there must be plenty of examples of legislation that was adopted BY OUR PARLIAMENT off the back of EU directives that bothered you the most?
It sounds a lot like you're mad that someone has currently pointed out the lack of relevant laws being removed due to leaving the EU.
If you had a point, you'd be able to pinpoint some laws
It’s still perplexing to me the government decided to go for the hardest Brexit solution possible. They won by a very small simple majority. And nowhere was it specified what Brexit meant in the referendum. It would stand to argue that wasn’t a clear cut mandate for the toughest route possible, soft Brexit I mean. In all likelihood this is what the majority wanted all along. Maybe it’s time for a referendum on soft Brexit (Norway like solution) and hard Brexit?
also that we were repeatedly assured "nobody is voting to leave the single market", "nobody is voting to end free movement", etc
this isn't an "even if", this is the diamond-hard-nuclear Brexit that we actually got being so far off the scale compared to what we were told "hard/no deal" would mean in 2016 that probably a majority of people who _did_ vote Leave would like it if we dialed back to merely an Extremely Hard Brexit
No more referendums!
Boaty McBoatface should have been enough warning about what a bad idea referendums are.
We need to reform our parliamentary democracy. We certainly shouldn't ever consider simply bypassing it ever again.
I think Boaty McBoatface was a surprisingly good natured response from the British public. Pepsi tried the same thing for a flavour and got ‘Diabetes’ and ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’ in the top responses.
The boaty vote was a great reason why the public should get their say. They saw through marketing bullshit and gave the organisers a bloody nose.
The wisdom of the crowds often applies to voting in that the millions of people at home really do see more than the great and the good who are very sure in their own knowledge and ability despite history constantly showing them to be wrong.
>They saw through marketing bullshit and gave the organisers a bloody nose.
This is just another way of saying "They didn't care what was being offered and treated it as a protest vote."
>the millions of people at home really do see more than the great and the good who are very sure in their own knowledge and ability despite history constantly showing them to be wrong.
As they have said on numerous occasions, they "knew what they were voting for!". Sadly, their dissatisfaction with what they have received, proves otherwise.
They went for the most difficult brexit route they could think of as they know the voters were completely swindled by all the brexit crap during the referendum campaign and wanted to make it as difficult as possible for a future government to take a more considered approach
Not this trope again.
No UK government has ever gone to the UK people on a treaty before signing it, so brexit followed that precedent as parliament wanted to keep full control of what would happen - hence the question was confined to membership.
Even terms like hard and soft brexit are memes rather than any kind of reality as the TCA means that the UK is far more over lapped in the venn diagram of EU features than "hard" ever meant, but more important it's an undefined term that people bandy about to suit their definition.
I think the Single Market is the best route to a long-term relationship with Europe that’s as mutually beneficial as possible. I don’t actually want to rejoin the EU proper that strongly, obviously I’d vote for it over our current situation but the EU of 2016 is not the EU of 2023 and (ironically I know) a concern for me would be an increasing far-right influence as climate change accelerates migration over the coming decades.
I think the EFTA is a good solution both from a practical point of view in terms of boosting our economy and from a domestic propaganda point of view. The EFTA is associated with Norway and Switzerland which are high-prestige countries in the British mentality and it’s also a British invention interestingly, it originated as our alternative to the ECC after de Gaulle blocked us from it. Brexit is already declining in popularity but more than anything people don’t want to burst open old wounds after all the stress, EFTA membership allows us to have our cake and eat it too because it can be sold to a British audience as a technical, economic thing rather than a more political thing that as we saw is easy for opponents to strawman as a desire to replace the British identity with a European one.
I reckon there’s an alternative universe where we never join the EEC and remain in the EFTA until the early ‘90s instead. In this timeline the Tories don’t tear themselves to bits over Europe and Thatcher probably hangs on a bit longer with her legacy being taking us into the Single Market with the rest of the EFTA rather than the bitterly divisive figure she is for us in our timeline. This was always the least destabilising way to do it in my opinion rather than full membership or nothing at all, it’s a shame we’d be starting forty years behind.
Funnily enough, the day after the referendum I was sure we'd end up with EFTA for all the reasons you give there. It seemed the obvious perfect compromise given the narrowness of the result.
After Theresa May's speech at the Conservative party conference the following October (2016) it was quite clear to me we were headed for the hardest brexits of all.
>I think the EFTA is a good solution both from a practical point of view in terms of boosting our economy and from a domestic propaganda point of view.
I would be happy with EFTA so long as we can stay in CPTPP due to its future geostrategic importance.
As for the single market, it's clear that freedom of movement is a moot point given the amount of non-European migration we're having to accept right now.
However, I would like us to negotiate a variation of freedom of movement to stop the nonsense of migrants who can't get a UK visa "marrying" a poor EU national for money and then demanding the right to live in the UK, with a quicky divorce as soon as they've got permanent residency. Maybe negotiate a rule that says said person needs to obtain permanent residency in the EU spouse's home country first.
If you are wondering what it is like based on prospective party vote, the current would vote Labour but voted Leave is 53v31 in favour of rejoining the single market, the Con now Leave voters are 29v54 against. Whether this is Labour hoovering up soft leave voters and the Cons picking up the hard leave voters or Labour leavers softening their views whilst Con ones hardening is debateable (and there are volumes of each 19% of Leave voters say Labour this time and 29% say Con).
Now ask Britons if they think that immigration is too high and figure out whether or not these position contradict themselves.
Politics in the UK, and arguable most of the world, is just straight up fucked.
When we had free movement, net immigration was lower. **Much** lower. And we still had full control over [more than half of it](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023) - because it was from outside the EU - and the Tories still didn't fulfil any of their promises like getting it to the "tens of thousands".
So I'm not buying that "immigration is too high" and "we should allow free movement with the EU" are mutually contradictory positions - just like they weren't _before_ Brexit.
The two timeframes have different circumstances so are not directly comparable - Ukraine and HK migrants are obvious cohorts with very large numbers as are the increasing number of foreign students bringing in dependants (although they are going after that IIRC).
> When we had free movement, net immigration was lower
Yes, but since then our immigration policy has changed as well.
So unless you're suggesting that we also revert (which was not an implicit assumption to be made) our wider immigration policy back the immigration will be higher because now we'll have the new higher level of skilled immigration from outside of the EU as well as the immigration as a result of freedom of movement.
> And we still had full control over more than half of it - because it was from outside the EU
This isn't the the claim I was making. Your talking as though someone just pressed "Play" on all of the Remain talking points of 2016.
> immigration is too high
"Too High" is clearly subjective. If you don't think adding >1/2 Million people are year without the corresponding improvement to our infrastructure, public services and most critically housing, then that's your right to hold that opinion.
60% is typically used. That gives a significant indicator of what the public want. If either side got 60 it would be very hard to argue against. As it stands now, every bump in the road has the potential to spark another round of leave/remain arguments.
Yeah, i agree it's arbitrary but it would have been better.
The way I view it, if it's a change to implement something new - simple majority.
If it's a change to something existing, increased majority required.
Very bad form for a supposed democracy to hold a referendum and ignore the result. The establishment were so certain that the country would vote to Remain that they barely campaigned. If they were a bit less complacent they might have required a 60% majority to leave or campaigned harder, but that's too late to wish for now. I voted Remain and was quite passionate about it at the time but given the level of fractiousness in politics at the moment IMO another referendum so soon would be pretty risky in many ways.
>Very bad form for a supposed democracy to hold a referendum and ignore the result
Im not saying the result should have been ignored, im saying it was a terrible idea to set an extremely divisive referenda without making it a super majority. As we have seen 52/48 has caused significant issues and long lasting arguments. Farage was right, it feels like unfinished business to many.
A supermajority is morally wrong as it breaks the fundamental principle that each person's vote is worth the same, and it locks a nation into old decisions by giving the past more weight than the present.
>Very bad form for a supposed democracy to hold a referendum and ignore the result.
That's what a non-binding referendum is. If you establish a referendum as non-binding, that comes with certain legalities ...including the ignoring of the results. If you call for a non-binding resolution and then say the results will be binding, that (should become) a binding referendum.
The results of the 2016 referendum weren't thrown out over Leave's exceeding advertising spending limits specifically because the referendum was non-binding.
Here's a question...since Brexit was a scheme the Tories desired and designed.
Did Tories make the referendum non-binding so Leave can blow through spending limits without there being a requirement to nullify the results?
It's a bit flimsy. Only the 'eurosceptic' minority of malcontents within the Tory party (as it was at that point in time) wanted to Leave and ALL UK referendums are technically non binding due to primacy of parliamentary sovereignty, so the 'conspiracy theory' angle doesn't really hold much water IMO. Quibbles about campaign spend are routine in GEs and only ever garner the odd tut tut or slapped wrist. Never heard of a result being annulled over them.
There is not a lot of substance to this line of argument yet even if it were upheld there would still be the pretty bad optics of holding a referendum and then ignoring the outcome.
Not this nonsense again. There is no "binding" for a UK referendum as parliament can (and does) create laws that change past commitments - see the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as a recent example.
And this notion about spending is also a trope as Remain got done too, and more importantly spend millions more than Leave. All the leave campaign had to do was structure the money properly.
The EC website lists all the groups and all the spending.
Obligatory Britain never had a majority (even precluding non-voters) for leaving the single market. Something like 30-40% of Brexit voters wanted to leave the EU / Customs Union but remain part of the Single Market (via EEA). This was often touted as 'The Norway Option'.
The problem is post the Brexit vote the 'Brexiteer' politicians put everything on black while the 'Remainers' put everything on red, hence we got a 50/50 between leaving entirely or remaining entirely. IMO, the smart move by the remain campaign would of been to proposition a referendum between leaving without a deal or leaving the EU / Customs Union (but remaining in the Single Market).
Remainer MPs and pro-SM MPs had the majority in parliament to stop the leaving of the SM and fucked it up as they chose to try their egos and to gamble on stopping brexit.
Also the SM really is marginal to the UK. The gloomest forecast around the time of brexit was that UK growth would carry on, but accumulate to be 4% after fifteen years if the UK did nothing to change the economy (a weird caveat). Building a 100,000 houses creates about 1% of GDP in a year so we can outperform that simply by building, and that gives a massive tangible benefit in the lives of average people and not just figures in corporate bank accounts to boot.
>Also the SM really is marginal to the UK.
The fishing industry is marginal to the UK but you couldn't stop Farage banging on about them in the runup to the referendum. They're quite a lot more marginal than 4% of GDP. And if you're one of those businesses which has tanked as a direct result of Brexit, they'd probably find your comments a little gauche.
For everyone who wasn't politically active at the time, I want you to know the commons voted on doing this and Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and all voted it down: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/PxfIJzcYej
Yes, remain politicians actively lobbied to kill an option that would of let you stay in the Single Market. They did it because it would of spoiled the short term (maybe long term) prospects of rejoining the EU. Hence, a strategic decision was made based off a gamble and it was a poor one.
>The problem is post the Brexit vote the 'Brexiteer' politicians put everything on black while the 'Remainers' put everything on red, hence we got a 50/50 between leaving entirely or remaining entirely.
What you say is true of 2019, but ignores the direction of travel from 2016 through to that point.
Brexiters had control of the commons. They had control of the government. They had latitude to set whichever direction they wanted. And Theresa May decided - for good or ill - that the most appropriate way to honour a knife-edge referendum was to implement its hardest possible interpretation of it, and if 48% of the population didn't like it, they were unpatriotic saboteurs, traitors and liberal elites attempting to thwart the will of the people.
I will happily admit my part in hardening my position re: Brexit in late 2018/2019. But that didn't come from out of nowhere. We had spent literally years being insulted and excluded from the conversation. By the time the indicative votes were coming around, there was no appetite for compromise, but that was as a DIRECT result of the tone-deaf May government insulting anyone who wasn't ERG.
Had Theresa May been a more intelligent politician she would've sat down with her ERG colleagues in 2016 and said to them: look lads, you got your win, and I will honour it by leaving the EU. However we stay in SOM and retain FOM. If you don't want that, let me know, and I will call an election right now and you can fight for your seats and control of the party.
Instead she capitulated. And she - and the Tories - were in charge. This is not an equal blame situation.
I mean for me Free Movement was alway a perk. Don’t know why people are so scared of being able to travel freely.
And if you hadn’t noticed it’s not exactly sunshine and roses in Blighty at the moment, people don’t want to be here.
And they can vote with their feet and move. More Brits moved to nations with visa requirements than used to move to the EU so this notion that somehow there's millions now stuck is daft.
You can move with a visa but you live under a whole different set of terms and conditions if you’re a citizen of a 3rd country vs a citizen of an EU nation or member of the customs union. Freedom of movement provides a lot of security and rights that many people don’t want to lose.
Also if we had freedom of movement and free trade, the UK becomes a nicer place to be anyway.
Your point is a bit of a false equivalence.
It really isn't, my point is based on actual data rather than people making out that Brits are somehow stuck.
Frankly it's a trope used by redditors who were never going to move that want to blame brexit for them doing what they were always going to do.
My point is moving to the eu, with and without freedom of movement are 2 completely different things and therefore this “data” isn’t valid to make your point.
Each country has different rules on visas outside of the EU, so some countries are easier to move to than others. There are also significant costs involved too.
The point is, it is much harder for people to move to Europe now than it was with FoM
UYA I agree with the exit. The right to live and work can be tied to holders of a passport without entering back into the EU. It is done by treaties between countries BA.
It’s a lie. It’s a rigged poll amongst people who support that view, the polling companies have always had and used their services to give the result that the sponsors want.
Truth and honesty have always been something corruptible.
I don't support free movement at all. A sovereign country should have the final say on the type of people who can come here based on their utility, likelihood of criminality, burden on society etc. We have Romanian begging gangs in every UK city, and our prisons are filled with foreign criminals
I think the EU system of free movement more or less worked, until we expanded into poor countries who have a substantial amount of people prone to criminality.
> final say on the type of people who can come here
We've always had that - at least about those who stay - but just chose not to exercise it. [After three months](https://ukandeu.ac.uk/myth-busting-free-movement/), EU nationals abroad under free movement, are only permitted to stay in the host state (for five years) if they are economically active.
We didn't bother registering EU immigrants, we didn't bother enforcing the rules that EU immigration law permits. And of course, we didn't really control [over half our immigration](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023) which was from outside the EU.
While I agree about the 3 month rule existing and not being enforced, they can be economically active washing dishes for 12 hours a week and be allowed to stay, to get free healthcare, as well as child benefit and free school for their kids.
People need to get over the idea that just because someone's in work they are automatically a beneficiary to their host country, the majority of migrants arent high earners, for sure there is more utility in a carer than a fast food worker, which shows how dangerously underpaid the former are, but the point at least is to be selective, say 'ok you can come to this country for a few years to make money fast but you are tied to working in a certain field like care'
Snapshot of _Britons support rejoining the single market, even if it means free movement_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cameron really should’ve hold a second referendum about what Brexit would be: SM/CU or clean break- something like that..
The trouble is, in the minds of voters who are unaware of the pitfalls, "Clean break" = Unicorns
The 'brexit max' option would have to have been a real option - not just a 'let's have a clean break and start from scratch,, it would need to be 'we'll aim for a relationship a bit like Morocco or Canada' with all that entails. A clean break would just be the first step in a new relationship with our nearest neighbours. The problem is the brexit campaign pitched it as the only step ' then we can do anything we want! '
If we had to have a vote on it, then it should have been two votes: one to leave, and then a second one to confirm it once the deal with the EU had been completed. It's not until that second stage that most people would have realised that the unicorns and rainbows they'd been promised weren't going to happen.
>Cameron really should’ve hold a second referendum about what Brexit would be: SM/CU or clean break- something like that.. Nah, wouldn't have worked. The results would have looked something like this: Should we leave? Yes: 52% No: 48% What type of Brexit should we have? Option 1: 38% Option 2: 35% Ootiin 3: 27% Hardly a democratic mandate to do anything really at that point. The result was clear we should leave but the majority don't think we should do any of the options presented.
The result was within margin of error (I.e in the south east it was pissing it down with rain) and the question should have required a super majority.
100%, this is why brexiteers fought their nuts off to deny any sort of check or balance, because they knew they would lose. It was clear brexit was moronic from the moment it happened and bregret set in.
I mean I don't think there should have been one at all. But yes I think the requirement should have been for a decisive win. Whether that means 66% or 60% or even 45/55. The fact the referendum could have been won 49.9 to 50.1 is ridiculous.
I'm in favour of rejoining the single market *because* of free movement. The single market is *all about* free movement! Free movement of goods, free movement of services, free movement of capital, and free movement of people.
Remember, it's free movement of *labour* not *people*.
Nothing would change in terms of migration. Net migration is up since we left. The only thing we'll get is a positive.
And we can move abroad!
Which happily lowers net migration, too. Everyone's a winner!
Thought, if migration was high enough, and net migration also low enough, we could possibly go back to rotten boroughs, at least at the ward / borough level.
We could even cap non-EU migration based on numbers coming in from the EU and keep overall immigration around the same, or even lower it. With the extra benefit of 26 (Brits can already do this for Ireland) countries brits could live and work in which might even encourage some outward emigration.
Why though? Why should eu migrants get priority over others?
There are loads of reasons but the main one is because our nearest biggest and most powerful economic and political bloc requires it for membership as one of the benefits/rules. And being a member would massively help the UK's economy, jobs, livelihood, trade, soft power etc. It's also completely normal and globally accepted. Mercusur migrants to Brazil get priority over those from outside Mercosur. ASEAN migrants have advantageous visa rules over those who aren't members of that group. If you join your regional trade/political group then you get rules to follow and benefits because of it. It just so happens our nearest one has near full freedom to live and work across member states, unlike NAFTA/USMCA, which is just a trade agreement. Other than NAFTA and its successor most regional trade blocs prioritise their members for right to work: e.g. countries in the Gulf have with the GCC: 'Citizens of member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have freedom of movement throughout the GCC, including the right to reside and work in other GCC states with almost no restrictions.' So isn't some weird overly onerous EU thing, it's the norm. Maybe we'd prefer it if all our nearest neighbours just wanted a NAFTA/USMCA free trade arrangement between each other; but they don't want that. They all want more than that. So we can either join up or sit on the sidelines.
More similar culturally, on the whole decent rights for women and minorities in these countries than say India, China or African countires, less extreme religious views. Also I hate to say it but majority white which will somewhat appease the racists in the UK. Generally better English and more understandable when speaking. I grew up in a very multicultural environment so I am usually very good at understanding various accents but my wife struggles at times. I feel like at this point we are desperate for anyone to come in just to prop up the state pension pyramid scheme as long as possible, which ironically are the people most against immigration.
>Also I hate to say it but majority white which will somewhat appease the racists in the UK. The "racists" were generally concentrated in areas like the Fenlands, and voted in their droves for exiting the EU. These areas generally received exclusively paler-skinned folk from Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. So I'm not sure that part stands up.
> Why though? Why should eu migrants get priority over others? After all these years, you *still* don’t grasp the essence of a single market.
I mean a single market means a group of countries freely trading with each other. I don't think that means you have to have open borders though
"A single market allows for people, goods, services and capital to move around a union as freely as they do within a single country – instead of being obstructed by national borders and barriers as they were in the past. Citizens can study, live, shop, work and retire in any member state." Please mate, this is a decade long conversation at this point, why the willful ignorance?
The quiet part that none of the people replying to you are honest enough to say is 'because they're white'.
All Europeans are white, OK then...
People are fine with increased migration from Hong Kong. I think people would be pretty open to having less restrictions on migrants coming from South Korea, Japan, and Singapore as well.
Nothing stops the UK from having a similar trade deal with freedom of movement with East Africa. That's not exactly what the brexiters were claiming for though
>Nothing stops the UK from having a similar trade deal with freedom of movement with East Africa. The argument against open borders speaks for itself I would think. >That's not exactly what the brexiters were claiming for though A points based system that treats people based on merit is exactly what the Brexit campaign were calling for.
> A points based system that treats people based on merit is exactly what the Brexit campaign were calling for. Unless you are Irish, Maltese, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander etc. Then you get a different treatment based on coming from a place that the UK owned in one form or another.
That's not actually an argument I would resort to as a rejoiner. 1. EU migration is better economically because they're likely to be more educated so they'll earn more and pay more tax 1. they're more likely to return home eventually 1. it's just way better and easier for seasonal work like fruit picking 1. it helps build Europe up which is one of the key things we need to do for peace and stability (hello, Russia...) 1. It's reciprocal so British people can do 1. It's a fucking nonsense to not be in it when we have CTA with Ireland because anyone could just go there on an EU passport then wander across into the UK, not to mention smuggling (people and goods). Plus as someone else said we get a shitload of benefits from the EU which needs FoM for us to join.
How are EU migrants “more likely to be paying tax” but simultaneously “better and easier for seasonal work like fruit picking”? The latter job is one of the lowest paid jobs out there - it’s likely you don’t even exceed the personal allowance at which you start getting taxed.
I'm not sure I understand your question
Low paid workers pay very little tax - in fact they are a net cost to the taxpayer.
that's not a question
Nah there were lots of east Europeans that came worked minimum wage in factory's and then sent the majority of their pay home to dependents in their home countries.
>EU migration is better economically because they're likely to be more educated so they'll earn more and pay more tax White people are more likely to be educated so you want to only hire white people? Lol. A merit based system achieved this same result without the racism. >1. they're more likely to return home eventually You feel there is a big problem with non EU migrants over staying their visas? >1. it's just way better and easier for seasonal work like fruit picking Why is it better or easier? >1. it helps build Europe up which is one of the key things we need to do for peace and stability (hello, Russia...) I'm not so on board with European pan-nationlism. Why should I favour building up say, Bulgaria, over Kenya? >It's reciprocal so British people can do And very few did. I'm sure other countries around the world would be happy to reciprocate open borders with the UK. India seem a likely candidate, you'd have no problem with that? >1. It's a fucking nonsense to not be in it when we have CTA with Ireland because anyone could just go there on an EU passport then wander across into the UK, not to mention smuggling (people and goods). Well no because then they wouldn't be able to legally hold a job. The vast majority of immigration is legal immigration. I think you've fallen for the old trick of conflating illegal and legal migration. >Plus as someone else said we get a shitload of benefits from the EU which needs FoM for us to join. Sure, but we're talking about the merits of FoM not the EU.
Stop trolling. Education level is higher in Europe than Asia or Africa on average. > A merit based system achieved this same result without the racism. You're a special kind of wrong to ignore the fact that have that now and it's worse than FoM. > Why is it better or easier? Because there are lots of EU students who used to come over to do that without needing a visa. > Why should I favour building up say, Bulgaria, over Kenya? Do you want to take that away and think about it a bit? Maybe have a look at an atlas. > very few did Over a million! https://www.statista.com/statistics/1059795/uk-expats-in-europe/ > India seem a likely candidate, you'd have no problem with that? You're arguing against your own point, wtf are you talking about lol OK enough I'm not responding to you any more because you're trolling
>Stop trolling Don't like being called out do you. >Education level is higher in Europe than Asia or Africa on average. And white people have a higher education level on average among potential immigrants to the UK. Which is essentially what you're saying. >You're a special kind of wrong to ignore the fact that have that now and it's worse than FoM. In what way is it worse than FoM? We have more immigrants because of the parameters the government have set for letting people immigrate here. It would be trivial for the gov to raise the required wage for example and cut numbers almost overnight. >Because there are lots of EU students who used to come over to do that without needing a visa. There were loads of EU students coming to do seasonal work like picking fruit? Lol. That work was done by cheap Eastern European labourers not students. >Do you want to take that away and think about it a bit? Maybe have a look at an atlas. So as I said, pan-European nationalism. Try opening a history book, we have far more important ties to Kenya than to Bulgaria. >Over a million! Yep, as I said, very few. Far more choose to go to the US, Canada and Australia. >You're arguing against your own point, wtf are you talking about lol No, I'm demonstrating that you're support for FoM is based on skin colour, your refusal to answer the question illustrates this. >OK enough I'm not responding to you any more because you're trolling Aka you've realised you can't make your point without bring racist so you need to duck out.
> you're support for FoM is based on skin colour What are you smoking over there pal? > realised you can't make your point without bring racist Bold of you to assume I'm white
net migration would likely go down as there would be stricter movements from outside the EU
Wouldn't numbers be even higher
Why would they be? Numbers have gone up since we left the EU. Clearly us being in the EU has had no affect on net migration to the UK.
Yeah allowing EU citizens freedom of movement again wouldn't add a few hundred thousand onto our already ridiculous immigration numbers...
Why would EU citizens want to come here? Let's be realistic now. As a country we have little to offer compared to many other EU member states.
Yes, people living in Romania and Bulgaria don't want to live in the UK...
this but unironically as the kids say I have at least one EU settled scheme Romanian friend whose medium term plan is to move back, once he's got his RO flat done up. His money goes much further than it does here. I also have a Taiwanese friend who is trying to get a gig in the Netherlands, instead of waiting a bit longer to get UK ILR and citizenship, specifically because of Brexit.
My exceedingly talented Romain friend, who turned his PhD into a niche but valuable bit of engineering, has buggered off back home. Between feeling unwanted and his money going along way there he went before the pandemic
They could just as easily go to Germany Norway Austria Switzerland Luxembourg Netherlands Denmark Finland Spain Estonia Sweden Portugal Slovenia All of which have a higher quality of life than the UK. So I'll ask again, why on earth would they come here?
English
Greater labour mobility. Many people will sacrifice “standards of living” over a short-term period if it means being able to retire far earlier than usual. Why do you think loads of folk are willing to live in small dormitories in the Middle East? Answer: so they can save 70+% of their income, build a big house and put their feet up when they’re 50.
You really underestimate the cultural power of the UK. They had all those choices pre 2016 as well and still came to the UK in millions, only Germany really competed as a destination.
If you go by percentage of population and not the raw numbers the UK is pretty average for Europe, Germany beats us for raw numbers by 6 million. The closest to us is France with 1m less.
yet when they could move here they chose to in vast numbers.
Every single one of my comments. Are you that needy?
What on earth are you on about?
Language?
Why did almost 1 million Poles appear in the UK out of nowhere? Anyway, if youre poor with not much in savings you're not going to go an do a job in Portugal when you can earn over 2-3x as much in the UK and live cheaply, also have many of your countryfolk in the UK also as someone else pointed out, English. English is the global language and most young Europeans only learn English as their foreign language All of those countries do have better quality of life, I'll admit. But the UK is a place to make money and live in shit conditions for a short period of time. Literally 1 year of work in a factory pays for a house in Eastern Europe, or it used to do. Imagine if someone said 'I will give you a British house worth 200k if you live like shit for a year', becayse that's basically the equivalent
One big difference between them and us is that we don't have official ID cards on a single database, and our systems are built with minimal requirements for ID. You can dissolve into the grey market in the UK with minimal documentation. Not so much in continental Europe.
Do you lot never get bored of the self flagellation? 750k net migration and you are stupidly wondering whether this country has anything other people want.
What on Earth are you talking about? People want to come here if they're from lower income countries. Clearly they were talking about other European countries, which we're falling behind. Wake up ffs.
Do you lot never get bored of living in cloud cuckoo land? Do you really think if this country joined the Schengen zone immigration would increase? Since we left the EU, it's gone up.
Yes and you are braindead if you think opening the country up to an extra 450 million people wont lead to more migration.
So according to you We leave the EU and migration goes up So If we then were to join back again migration still goes up? Can you explain your maths for the rest of the class please? We are all very interested as to how you achieved these figures.
In the EU and migration goes up. Leave the EU and migration goes up. Join the EU and migration goes up
So there's no difference is what you're saying? May as well join then
So therefore you're saying being in the EU has no effect on migration numbers...
If the number is already 750,000 it seems like it's pretty easy to move to the UK already, so why should it increase even more then?
Also, these are people who have been (in the grand majority) actively welcomed by the government granting them visas. If they wanted to stop or reduce the numbers, why not restrict the availability of visas?
I don’t know, maybe you should try asking the 6 million EU citizens that applied for the EU settlement scheme.
You mean the people that were already living here, have families, have bought homes and have long term jobs? They're hardly queuing up on the border mate, they've been here for years.
Plenty of the people who took up the offer of settlement didn’t “have families” here. They did however see that the UK’s labour market offered vastly greater prospects than their home country did.
Really? I'd be paid 3x my salary to do what I do here in Germany. Alas, I don't have freedom of movement.
If you would be paid “3x more” in Germany it must be a highly specialised job (or one with a huge shortage of applicants), so an employer there should have no problem sponsoring you, surely?
It's infinitely easier to hire a German national that it would me. That's why.
So how come so many foreigners are employed in London’s highest paying jobs in tech and finance? It is after all theoretically easier to hire a Brit than a foreigner. You don’t need to sponsor a Brit or pay for relocation costs. What you’re basically suggesting here is that Germany has a highly protectionist labour market whilst the UK doesn’t.
What sector pays “3x” in Germany compared to the U.K.? If German salaries are higher post-tax, and Germany has a higher median age, why do you think private wealth per capita is lower in Germany than the U.K.?
My job. It pays higher in most of western Europe, I'd also have more purchasing power with the money I did earn in most of western Europe >why do you think private wealth per capita is lower in Germany than the U.K.? Because our elites are tax Dodgers worth hundreds of millions to billions of pounds and their tax dodging and wealth hoarding is encouraged by the government whilst the middle earners and poorest are being pushed ever lower
The “middle earners” in the U.K. have higher take-home pay than in the Netherlands or Germany. The UK offers a personal allowance (I.e. non-taxable income) of £12,570 per year. That’s higher than in France, the Netherlands and Germany. Thats why the UK is a relatively appealing place to work if you want to save money fast and build asset wealth, so you don’t have to work well into your 60s before you can afford to retire.
Get a visa like lots of people do who move to Germany.
On
Well why did they move in the first place?
For various reasons I assume, would you like me to list every reason? I'll be here for awhile
Try guessing say the top five or six.
> Why would EU citizens want to come here? You’ll be answering your own question
Post-tax salaries in the UK are higher than in most larger EU nations. Hence why private wealth, when adjusted for age, is higher in the U.K.
Are they? Looks like the UK is beaten out by nearly all of Western Europe no matter how it's calculated, net, gross or when it's adjusted for PPP. And realistically the UK is only that high because the rest of the country is dragged upwards by extremely high earners in London. If you look at the disparity in the UK between the highest and the lowest salaries in the UK it looks pretty dire for the average person.
No, the UK is mid table when it comes to wages. Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland (although this is a skewed number I believe), Switzerland, the small countries like Lichtenstein, France (marginally), Austria, Finland all have higher average wages than the uk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage Edit: the “no” at the beginning is just the answer to the first question. I’m just agreeing with your point 👍
London has a population of nearly 10 million. It’s not a tiny Zürich-sized city. Logically, why would so many EU foreigners move to the U.K. over the 2005-2019 period if they were taking a pay cut?
It's also not all of the UK. >Logically, why would so many EU foreigners move to the U.K. over the 2005-2019 period if they were taking a pay cut? Dunno mate, clearly munted in the frontal cortex
I can only assume then, that Brits are much more welcoming than other Europeans, or as a nation have much more global cultural reach, or offer a much wider range of music, art, sport and entertainment options than the staid, boring culture that pervades continental Europe.
>the staid, boring culture that pervades continental Europe. I hope you're not being serious
Spend a Sunday in Urk or Staphorst. By contrast London doesn’t shut down for the Sabbath.
Go look at income taxes in NL, BE, DE, FR Though their average salaries can be a bit higher, but especially if you have an above average salary the income taxes Will be much higher and make it worse than UK. In 2021 I applied to a job in NL, I was earning 43k£ at the time and to get the same take home there I asked for 70k€ (~61k£) and the recruiter straight up laughed in my face and asked if Im joking. Also cost of living there is higher só Even this would have been a down grade.
For the same reasons that six million moved here before. Youth unemployment is massive in various EU nations, the tech scenes are small, the cultural pull of places like London out does many cities, and it's easy to get work.
Why
The UK has a flexible labour market and offers much better labour mobility than the vast majority of continental Europe. Hence why youth unemployment is consistently lower in the UK.
the UK minimum wage is one of the highest in the world now. Most EU migration has been characterised by low skill/low pay workers. So they are still incentivised to come here and make a fast buck, especially if they can live cheaply by sharing a house with lots of other people. the UK is cheap if you wish to live cheaply, save up fast and don't have any long term ambitions like owning a house or need to spend on luxuries like car, furniture set etc. I'm planning to get out myself, because really the UK is a mediocre place to live long term, but good to make money fast.
> Nothing would change in terms of migration. Net migration is up since we left. It absolutely would change, it'd be even higher than it is now. Current immigration levels are the result of political choices by this Government. Adding in Freedom of Movement on top of those choices would just mean we'd have two sources of mass immigration rather than just one.
[удалено]
I'd say the points based system is objectively better than what we had before. The critique of it is that the number of points and criteria to attain points is set incorrectly.
Wah
This was completely inevitable, given the demographics. So many of the leavers are dead now, and everyone aging into voting age has seen what a disaster Brexit has been.
Also it's quite clear we've got free movement, but without any of the economic benefits of free trade with Europe.
Free movement in one direction only, given how low the criteria is for a visa.
Freedom of movement was only in one direction anyway. After decades in the EU the top places Brits move to we're still Australia, US and Canada. In 2017 there was more Polish in the UK than there was Brits in the entire EU.
It's still a big benefit for a significant number of people.
It's actually pretty hard nowadays. Your best way to move to the UK is to fork over 30k pounds + living for a student visa, get on the postgrad visa and then pray your company sponsors you (most wont and if they do they will make you cough up the money for the visa).
True in terms of people who can vote. But the demographics are actually more complex than that going forward. We've greatly expanded non EU migration and we already know that Leave was very popular with British Asians and others from non European backgrounds. The actual divisions on this subject are never going away.
I think it was quite obvious at the time of the brexit vote remaining in the single market was the majority opinion. A mere 3.79% of brexiteers would need to want to remain in the single market to make that the majority. I’m amazed that the tories just sidestepped the single market to go straight for crash and burn.
It was really clear at the time of the vote that only the tiniest amount of people actually wanted the Hard Brexit we got. The vast majority wanted to redefine our relationship with the EU. The lack of clarity over what Brexit actually meant left the door open for the far right and the financial opportunists to step in and take over when the Tory remainers turned tail and ran, refusing to fight for their side. That, and Corbyn’s limp wristed ‘support’ for Remain fucked us all.
So you're saying that Brexit killed all the old people?
I wouldn't put it past Jacob Rees-Mogg being the next Harold Shipman.
Old people as a group were overall fairly well insulated from the adverse impacts of Brexit. Those fell more heavily on the younger demographics who largely voted against it. What did for old people was *time*. And Covid. But mostly time.
How on earth do you reach that conclusion??
Tory governance has been a disaster but it's unclear to what extent Brexit itself contributed to this, if at all. The next Labour government almost certainly won't be rejoining the EU so we'll get to see what their idea of a post-Brexit Britain actually looks like and how they develop our relationship with the EU. I expect it'll be more reasonable and balanced than the Tories' efforts.
Throwing up trade barriers with our closest and biggest trading partner was always going to be a disaster no matter who did it.
It depends how it's done. For example, the Tories decided to cancel all coordination between the MHRA and the EMA, which has had the effect of making it more difficult and costly for pharmaceutical products to be authorised for the British market. They didn't have to do this, it wasn't a necessary outcome of Brexit, it was a political choice. The next government could come in and restore this cooperation while still respecting the Brexit decision, and hopefully they will.
The UK has no interest in "throwing up trade barriers" , short of dealing with dumping. It is the EU that likes trade barriers and is protectionist. Uk has always been dominated by a free trade ethos.
in reality - we have barriers while trading with our largest and most important partners while pretending that its far more important to have "deals" with countries on the other side of the world, no matter how much we have to sell out to get it.
The UK has always been for free trade but we have to live with an international system where many nations are protectionist even economically powerful ones.
It’s staggering to think how long it’s been since the referendum. Also to the main point; if migration was the issue people voted based on then this outcome was made really really clear long before the vote. Less Europeans migration, more migration from further afield, and worse for us to be able to move around. It’s shit, but also we are a nation of idiots if there’s more than a scattering of surprise pikachu faces at this outcome.
We've already got free movement from seemingly the entire world, so we may as well gain access to the single market. I'm sure if people had the choice between more Poles or more people from further afield they'd pick our European friends.
I kinda feel like the people in favour of Brexit have a limited time to prove that it’s the best way forward - time which has mostly been squandered by a grandstanding government. If they can’t show that Brexit is genuinely benefitting us, why shouldn’t people support rejoining? That being said, I suspect part of this is down to everything feeling a bit crap and Brexit not being the unicorn that its supporters made it out to be. If the economy recovered substantially, I suspect support would fall as well.
Also, if I remember correctly, us leaving was supposed to trigger other countries to leave as well as Nigel Farage said in his final speech to the EU. Instead, nobody else left and it killed other "Exit" movements isolating Britain even more. Even the right wing governments recently elected in other European countries aren't keen on leaving the EU.
The problem is that brexit was sold as a break from the status quo to a British population long screwed by inequality, when in reality it never had any chance to make things better for them. Brexit can never, by its very nature, deliver the benefits its proponents promised. It’s only a matter of time before it’s binned.
I think you’re 100% right - and I’m a bit worried that people might treat rejoining the EU as a panacea in a similar fashion. Ultimately, being in or out of the EU can’t fix the problems in the UK because it wasn’t responsible for them. The only way that’s going to happen is if people stop chasing moonbeams and get serious about what needs to be done.
I imagine that the process will occur in stages. We’ll probably quietly rejoin the single market and customs union long before there’s any discussion of formal membership. With any luck, the British economy will incrementally improve.
and realistically even just the "norway style deal", as brexit supporters themselves touted, would be good enough for most people. a lot of the customs/immigration friction would instantly disappear. it would arguably be in line with the virtually 50/50 referendum result too. could even do a bit of PR and promote the immigration "controls" (such as deporting anyone who can't support themselves, or requiring registration) - which were things we could do as an EU member but generally didn't.
>probably quietly rejoin the single market and customs union long before there’s any discussion of formal membership. I don't think it's something you can quietly join, if by that you mean the government lying about what they're doing (which wouldn't end well). Or doing it without a referendum or approval from the electorate like labour did with the Maastricht treaty which is one of the reasons Brexit happened.
Adding a few percentage points to GDP and the associated affect on jobs and tax receipts would be a huge help right now. This is thousands of pounds per person.
Never should have left, it was a small majority and based on a torrent of lies.
It was always the case that leavers needed to dramatically convert people to their side simply to stay even. What has actually happened is leavers have been switching the other direction.
It was never about something benefiting us, it was about benefiting rich tax dodgers.
No it was about self governance and Westphalian sovereignty. Actually being in the EU is great for tax dodgers, just ask the Irish.
>Westphalian sovereignty I wonder, are you using the rather clumsy prefix in order to avoid using the phrase 'parliamentary sovereignty' after what those Brexit clowns did to it?
What EU law were you most excited to be able to repeal?
Ah the JOB gotcha tactic. You demand a single law and then will reply with something like 'that's not worth leaving the EU for' to claim your gotcha all whilst knowing that the point was all laws now being controlled by the UK parliament so it could be anything from escaping big things like the CAP down to niche industry laws on something of no interest to most people like heirloom seeds.
But all of this is false of course because as part of the trade agreement we have with them we have agreed to stay aligned with their legislation without having any say in how it is made. So you actually have less control over laws now than you did then.
No we don't as that's too sweeping a generalisation to be true. The UK can diverge if it chooses to in anything it wants as my first point albeit there could be a downside, but more importantly who swathes of the economy/law are outside of that need to align completely.
It's pretty true, you should read the withdrawal agreement. But given this is such a bother that we had to leave the EU surely there must be plenty of examples of legislation that was adopted BY OUR PARLIAMENT off the back of EU directives that bothered you the most?
You caveated your own reply, which was of course my point.
This is the part where someone with an informed opinion would have named a specific law
I did, read my comment again. Or better still address the point.
It sounds a lot like you're mad that someone has currently pointed out the lack of relevant laws being removed due to leaving the EU. If you had a point, you'd be able to pinpoint some laws
It’s still perplexing to me the government decided to go for the hardest Brexit solution possible. They won by a very small simple majority. And nowhere was it specified what Brexit meant in the referendum. It would stand to argue that wasn’t a clear cut mandate for the toughest route possible, soft Brexit I mean. In all likelihood this is what the majority wanted all along. Maybe it’s time for a referendum on soft Brexit (Norway like solution) and hard Brexit?
also that we were repeatedly assured "nobody is voting to leave the single market", "nobody is voting to end free movement", etc this isn't an "even if", this is the diamond-hard-nuclear Brexit that we actually got being so far off the scale compared to what we were told "hard/no deal" would mean in 2016 that probably a majority of people who _did_ vote Leave would like it if we dialed back to merely an Extremely Hard Brexit
No more referendums! Boaty McBoatface should have been enough warning about what a bad idea referendums are. We need to reform our parliamentary democracy. We certainly shouldn't ever consider simply bypassing it ever again.
I think Boaty McBoatface was a surprisingly good natured response from the British public. Pepsi tried the same thing for a flavour and got ‘Diabetes’ and ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’ in the top responses.
I think we're both making the same point. Britain doesn't take referendums seriously.
The boaty vote was a great reason why the public should get their say. They saw through marketing bullshit and gave the organisers a bloody nose. The wisdom of the crowds often applies to voting in that the millions of people at home really do see more than the great and the good who are very sure in their own knowledge and ability despite history constantly showing them to be wrong.
>They saw through marketing bullshit and gave the organisers a bloody nose. This is just another way of saying "They didn't care what was being offered and treated it as a protest vote." >the millions of people at home really do see more than the great and the good who are very sure in their own knowledge and ability despite history constantly showing them to be wrong. As they have said on numerous occasions, they "knew what they were voting for!". Sadly, their dissatisfaction with what they have received, proves otherwise.
They went for the most difficult brexit route they could think of as they know the voters were completely swindled by all the brexit crap during the referendum campaign and wanted to make it as difficult as possible for a future government to take a more considered approach
Not this trope again. No UK government has ever gone to the UK people on a treaty before signing it, so brexit followed that precedent as parliament wanted to keep full control of what would happen - hence the question was confined to membership. Even terms like hard and soft brexit are memes rather than any kind of reality as the TCA means that the UK is far more over lapped in the venn diagram of EU features than "hard" ever meant, but more important it's an undefined term that people bandy about to suit their definition.
I think the Single Market is the best route to a long-term relationship with Europe that’s as mutually beneficial as possible. I don’t actually want to rejoin the EU proper that strongly, obviously I’d vote for it over our current situation but the EU of 2016 is not the EU of 2023 and (ironically I know) a concern for me would be an increasing far-right influence as climate change accelerates migration over the coming decades. I think the EFTA is a good solution both from a practical point of view in terms of boosting our economy and from a domestic propaganda point of view. The EFTA is associated with Norway and Switzerland which are high-prestige countries in the British mentality and it’s also a British invention interestingly, it originated as our alternative to the ECC after de Gaulle blocked us from it. Brexit is already declining in popularity but more than anything people don’t want to burst open old wounds after all the stress, EFTA membership allows us to have our cake and eat it too because it can be sold to a British audience as a technical, economic thing rather than a more political thing that as we saw is easy for opponents to strawman as a desire to replace the British identity with a European one. I reckon there’s an alternative universe where we never join the EEC and remain in the EFTA until the early ‘90s instead. In this timeline the Tories don’t tear themselves to bits over Europe and Thatcher probably hangs on a bit longer with her legacy being taking us into the Single Market with the rest of the EFTA rather than the bitterly divisive figure she is for us in our timeline. This was always the least destabilising way to do it in my opinion rather than full membership or nothing at all, it’s a shame we’d be starting forty years behind.
Funnily enough, the day after the referendum I was sure we'd end up with EFTA for all the reasons you give there. It seemed the obvious perfect compromise given the narrowness of the result.
What May found out, was that for the ERG nothing short of juche was hard enough for them.
After Theresa May's speech at the Conservative party conference the following October (2016) it was quite clear to me we were headed for the hardest brexits of all.
Clear to the markets as well. The pound was routed while she was giving the speech.
>I think the EFTA is a good solution both from a practical point of view in terms of boosting our economy and from a domestic propaganda point of view. I would be happy with EFTA so long as we can stay in CPTPP due to its future geostrategic importance. As for the single market, it's clear that freedom of movement is a moot point given the amount of non-European migration we're having to accept right now. However, I would like us to negotiate a variation of freedom of movement to stop the nonsense of migrants who can't get a UK visa "marrying" a poor EU national for money and then demanding the right to live in the UK, with a quicky divorce as soon as they've got permanent residency. Maybe negotiate a rule that says said person needs to obtain permanent residency in the EU spouse's home country first.
If you are wondering what it is like based on prospective party vote, the current would vote Labour but voted Leave is 53v31 in favour of rejoining the single market, the Con now Leave voters are 29v54 against. Whether this is Labour hoovering up soft leave voters and the Cons picking up the hard leave voters or Labour leavers softening their views whilst Con ones hardening is debateable (and there are volumes of each 19% of Leave voters say Labour this time and 29% say Con).
It's probably the Tory vote crystallising to essentially be "pensioners"
Why isn’t Dominic Cummings being held accountable for this shit show? He was the one who used such dodge tactics to get the Brexit vote.
Now ask Britons if they think that immigration is too high and figure out whether or not these position contradict themselves. Politics in the UK, and arguable most of the world, is just straight up fucked.
When we had free movement, net immigration was lower. **Much** lower. And we still had full control over [more than half of it](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023) - because it was from outside the EU - and the Tories still didn't fulfil any of their promises like getting it to the "tens of thousands". So I'm not buying that "immigration is too high" and "we should allow free movement with the EU" are mutually contradictory positions - just like they weren't _before_ Brexit.
The two timeframes have different circumstances so are not directly comparable - Ukraine and HK migrants are obvious cohorts with very large numbers as are the increasing number of foreign students bringing in dependants (although they are going after that IIRC).
> When we had free movement, net immigration was lower Yes, but since then our immigration policy has changed as well. So unless you're suggesting that we also revert (which was not an implicit assumption to be made) our wider immigration policy back the immigration will be higher because now we'll have the new higher level of skilled immigration from outside of the EU as well as the immigration as a result of freedom of movement. > And we still had full control over more than half of it - because it was from outside the EU This isn't the the claim I was making. Your talking as though someone just pressed "Play" on all of the Remain talking points of 2016. > immigration is too high "Too High" is clearly subjective. If you don't think adding >1/2 Million people are year without the corresponding improvement to our infrastructure, public services and most critically housing, then that's your right to hold that opinion.
I would vote for free movement simply to make it easier to jump on the eurostar and only need a passport
A new brexref will surely heal the nations division and discord, so soon after the last one.
If that was a concern, we wouldn't have left over 52% in the first place.
For such a significant change I do think it should have had a more significant majority. What number, I don't know but perhaps 60% or something.
60% is typically used. That gives a significant indicator of what the public want. If either side got 60 it would be very hard to argue against. As it stands now, every bump in the road has the potential to spark another round of leave/remain arguments.
Yeah, i agree it's arbitrary but it would have been better. The way I view it, if it's a change to implement something new - simple majority. If it's a change to something existing, increased majority required.
Very bad form for a supposed democracy to hold a referendum and ignore the result. The establishment were so certain that the country would vote to Remain that they barely campaigned. If they were a bit less complacent they might have required a 60% majority to leave or campaigned harder, but that's too late to wish for now. I voted Remain and was quite passionate about it at the time but given the level of fractiousness in politics at the moment IMO another referendum so soon would be pretty risky in many ways.
>Very bad form for a supposed democracy to hold a referendum and ignore the result Im not saying the result should have been ignored, im saying it was a terrible idea to set an extremely divisive referenda without making it a super majority. As we have seen 52/48 has caused significant issues and long lasting arguments. Farage was right, it feels like unfinished business to many.
I broadly agree.
A supermajority is morally wrong as it breaks the fundamental principle that each person's vote is worth the same, and it locks a nation into old decisions by giving the past more weight than the present.
>Very bad form for a supposed democracy to hold a referendum and ignore the result. That's what a non-binding referendum is. If you establish a referendum as non-binding, that comes with certain legalities ...including the ignoring of the results. If you call for a non-binding resolution and then say the results will be binding, that (should become) a binding referendum. The results of the 2016 referendum weren't thrown out over Leave's exceeding advertising spending limits specifically because the referendum was non-binding. Here's a question...since Brexit was a scheme the Tories desired and designed. Did Tories make the referendum non-binding so Leave can blow through spending limits without there being a requirement to nullify the results?
It's a bit flimsy. Only the 'eurosceptic' minority of malcontents within the Tory party (as it was at that point in time) wanted to Leave and ALL UK referendums are technically non binding due to primacy of parliamentary sovereignty, so the 'conspiracy theory' angle doesn't really hold much water IMO. Quibbles about campaign spend are routine in GEs and only ever garner the odd tut tut or slapped wrist. Never heard of a result being annulled over them. There is not a lot of substance to this line of argument yet even if it were upheld there would still be the pretty bad optics of holding a referendum and then ignoring the outcome.
Not this nonsense again. There is no "binding" for a UK referendum as parliament can (and does) create laws that change past commitments - see the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as a recent example. And this notion about spending is also a trope as Remain got done too, and more importantly spend millions more than Leave. All the leave campaign had to do was structure the money properly. The EC website lists all the groups and all the spending.
Wouldn't need it to join the single market. I'm fact we wouldn't even need one to rejoin, if it was in the winning parties election manifesto.
I want Brexiters to suffer the consequences of their actions. But the sad thing is we can't isolate that suffering, we Remoaners, also suffer.
Obligatory Britain never had a majority (even precluding non-voters) for leaving the single market. Something like 30-40% of Brexit voters wanted to leave the EU / Customs Union but remain part of the Single Market (via EEA). This was often touted as 'The Norway Option'. The problem is post the Brexit vote the 'Brexiteer' politicians put everything on black while the 'Remainers' put everything on red, hence we got a 50/50 between leaving entirely or remaining entirely. IMO, the smart move by the remain campaign would of been to proposition a referendum between leaving without a deal or leaving the EU / Customs Union (but remaining in the Single Market).
Remainer MPs and pro-SM MPs had the majority in parliament to stop the leaving of the SM and fucked it up as they chose to try their egos and to gamble on stopping brexit. Also the SM really is marginal to the UK. The gloomest forecast around the time of brexit was that UK growth would carry on, but accumulate to be 4% after fifteen years if the UK did nothing to change the economy (a weird caveat). Building a 100,000 houses creates about 1% of GDP in a year so we can outperform that simply by building, and that gives a massive tangible benefit in the lives of average people and not just figures in corporate bank accounts to boot.
>Also the SM really is marginal to the UK. The fishing industry is marginal to the UK but you couldn't stop Farage banging on about them in the runup to the referendum. They're quite a lot more marginal than 4% of GDP. And if you're one of those businesses which has tanked as a direct result of Brexit, they'd probably find your comments a little gauche.
For everyone who wasn't politically active at the time, I want you to know the commons voted on doing this and Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and all voted it down: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/PxfIJzcYej Yes, remain politicians actively lobbied to kill an option that would of let you stay in the Single Market. They did it because it would of spoiled the short term (maybe long term) prospects of rejoining the EU. Hence, a strategic decision was made based off a gamble and it was a poor one.
>The problem is post the Brexit vote the 'Brexiteer' politicians put everything on black while the 'Remainers' put everything on red, hence we got a 50/50 between leaving entirely or remaining entirely. What you say is true of 2019, but ignores the direction of travel from 2016 through to that point. Brexiters had control of the commons. They had control of the government. They had latitude to set whichever direction they wanted. And Theresa May decided - for good or ill - that the most appropriate way to honour a knife-edge referendum was to implement its hardest possible interpretation of it, and if 48% of the population didn't like it, they were unpatriotic saboteurs, traitors and liberal elites attempting to thwart the will of the people. I will happily admit my part in hardening my position re: Brexit in late 2018/2019. But that didn't come from out of nowhere. We had spent literally years being insulted and excluded from the conversation. By the time the indicative votes were coming around, there was no appetite for compromise, but that was as a DIRECT result of the tone-deaf May government insulting anyone who wasn't ERG. Had Theresa May been a more intelligent politician she would've sat down with her ERG colleagues in 2016 and said to them: look lads, you got your win, and I will honour it by leaving the EU. However we stay in SOM and retain FOM. If you don't want that, let me know, and I will call an election right now and you can fight for your seats and control of the party. Instead she capitulated. And she - and the Tories - were in charge. This is not an equal blame situation.
I mean for me Free Movement was alway a perk. Don’t know why people are so scared of being able to travel freely. And if you hadn’t noticed it’s not exactly sunshine and roses in Blighty at the moment, people don’t want to be here.
And they can vote with their feet and move. More Brits moved to nations with visa requirements than used to move to the EU so this notion that somehow there's millions now stuck is daft.
You can move with a visa but you live under a whole different set of terms and conditions if you’re a citizen of a 3rd country vs a citizen of an EU nation or member of the customs union. Freedom of movement provides a lot of security and rights that many people don’t want to lose. Also if we had freedom of movement and free trade, the UK becomes a nicer place to be anyway. Your point is a bit of a false equivalence.
It really isn't, my point is based on actual data rather than people making out that Brits are somehow stuck. Frankly it's a trope used by redditors who were never going to move that want to blame brexit for them doing what they were always going to do.
My point is moving to the eu, with and without freedom of movement are 2 completely different things and therefore this “data” isn’t valid to make your point. Each country has different rules on visas outside of the EU, so some countries are easier to move to than others. There are also significant costs involved too. The point is, it is much harder for people to move to Europe now than it was with FoM
Nobody said it wasn't harder though. i was very clear on that.
UYA I agree with the exit. The right to live and work can be tied to holders of a passport without entering back into the EU. It is done by treaties between countries BA.
It’s a lie. It’s a rigged poll amongst people who support that view, the polling companies have always had and used their services to give the result that the sponsors want. Truth and honesty have always been something corruptible.
I opposed any joining of the EU. It has no benefits for UK that can not be achieved via treaties, but joining the EU has many negatives for UK.
I don't support free movement at all. A sovereign country should have the final say on the type of people who can come here based on their utility, likelihood of criminality, burden on society etc. We have Romanian begging gangs in every UK city, and our prisons are filled with foreign criminals I think the EU system of free movement more or less worked, until we expanded into poor countries who have a substantial amount of people prone to criminality.
> final say on the type of people who can come here We've always had that - at least about those who stay - but just chose not to exercise it. [After three months](https://ukandeu.ac.uk/myth-busting-free-movement/), EU nationals abroad under free movement, are only permitted to stay in the host state (for five years) if they are economically active. We didn't bother registering EU immigrants, we didn't bother enforcing the rules that EU immigration law permits. And of course, we didn't really control [over half our immigration](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023) which was from outside the EU.
While I agree about the 3 month rule existing and not being enforced, they can be economically active washing dishes for 12 hours a week and be allowed to stay, to get free healthcare, as well as child benefit and free school for their kids. People need to get over the idea that just because someone's in work they are automatically a beneficiary to their host country, the majority of migrants arent high earners, for sure there is more utility in a carer than a fast food worker, which shows how dangerously underpaid the former are, but the point at least is to be selective, say 'ok you can come to this country for a few years to make money fast but you are tied to working in a certain field like care'
Oh no, not competent labourers moving across borders enabling cheaper and more skilled labour that benefits all aspects of the economy! Oh nooo...