Forum Topic

So Brexit was wrong

Yes, obviously some of us knew Brexit was a mistake based on lies.

Michael Ixer ● 708d30 Comments

We haven’t got a high speed rail network.Just travelling within the UK is very difficult by rail.It is expensive and unreliable, but yes very handy for the small percentage that will be able to make use of the connection.I’m not sure how the green equation would balance out with the journey made by car to Dover as compared to flying from their local airport.Also far more journeys are made locally than made abroad. And again far more journeys are made between UK cities than abroad. So I think you may be over egging the importance of European rail link.A look at the map you linked to, shows how far behind the UK has got compared to Europe and other parts of the world. Nothing to do with Brexit however.As with border control I’ve found them all excellent in all the various countries I have visited. Always be polite and respectful, especially to those authorised to use latex gloves is my tip :)

Ed Robinson ● 700d

Perhaps, Ed. But My understanding is EU citizens are still allowed to use electronic passport gates coming into the EU. The thing is UK railways should be joining up with the European rail initiative to to reduce short haul flights because of climate change.https://www.railwaygazette.com/high-speed/train-operators-propose-32-000-km-high-speed-rail-metropolitan-network/64501.article
In practice the extra Brexit controls are increasing Eurostar prices, reducing its settings capacity and cutting the number of stations served whereas prices should be reduced by increasing capacity and routes,  and perhaps by taxing air fuel as for other transport types. That means making rail travel border controls more seamless. My assumption would be anyone not in favour of that probably doesn't care about the future of the planet? There were border controls prior to Brexit (I've seen an Indian family stopped by UK border staff at the Gare de Nord while my - white - friends with US passports sailed through as quickly as I would in those days with a UK passport.)

Michael Ixer ● 700d

It's the same level of proof that is required for EU travellers entering the UK.When people are asked about border checks they tend to think that they are sensible. It's just a question of educating the public that such checks are normally reciprocal.

Ed Robinson ● 700d

Kate Bingham certainly did a great job in mobilising the UK's vaccine rollout. (An island of competence in a sea of Etonian arrogance?) Just as well given, as we now know, the partying going on in government departments during the pandemic and the seemingly dubious purchases of PPE, flaky test & trace systems, etc ... Yes, it was the European Medicines Agency that first identified the rare blood clotting side effect with the AstraZenecca vaccine and paused its use in the EU. Was that unreasonable based on their findings? https://pharmanewsintel.com/news/european-countries-suspend-use-of-astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine I don’t remember any specific delays with other vaccines, perhaps the EU processes were slower but they did find the  AZ issue; there is some evidence that the mRNA vaccines are more effective. https://theconversation.com/amp/what-happened-to-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-now-rare-in-rich-countries-its-still-saving-lives-around-the-world-181791#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16894965543975&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com I've no recollection of the EU threatening to rip up the NI Agreement, only of Johnson trying to renege on the NI Protocol that put a border between the UK and NI; but that was a deal he and Frost freely negotiated and signed with the EU, and Sunak has since replaced with the Windsor Framework. I'm sure you can provide references to jog my failing memory. Of course the original NI Agreement was based on the UK and Ireland both being part of the EU so anything post Brexit is difficult to engineer to everyone's satisfaction.

Michael Ixer ● 701d

The EU’s main contribution was initially to undermine the effectiveness of vaccines (especially the Astra Zeneca). Then they threatened to tear up the Northern Ireland agreement to take vaccines supplies away from the UK. All it seemed in a fit of pique at the outstanding work of the British task force led by the excellent Baroness Kate Bingham!

Guy Cameron ● 701d

"So there are almost certainly hundreds of people alive today who would have died had Britain remained in the EU."Germany seems to have had rather fewer Covid deaths per thousand than we had, it seems, despite (or because of?) the pressure.https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/#:~:text=Hungary%20had%20recorded%20496.4%20deaths,Europe%2C%20at%20over%20394%20thousand.OR USEhttps://tinyurl.com/5fushwdh

David Ainsworth ● 701d

Well said.  Don’t forget we backed Ukraine fast, Paris appears in flames, Germany is in recession and the Netherlands are changing governments weekly.    yes l love Europe but l don’t want to be joined at the hip with it.

Robert Wheeler ● 701d

Well one positive result of Brexit is that the UK was able to opt out out of the bungled EU vaccination programme. By the end of January 2021 the UK had already vaccinated almost a million of its most most vulnerable citizens, when EU countries had hardly begun to vaccinate their populations. So there are almost certainly hundreds of people alive today who would have died had Britain remained in the EU. The argument that the UK could have opted out of the EU programme even if it has remained a a member state, by the way, is tendentious. Brussels exerted pressure on countries like Germany, which wanted to go ahead with its own programme, to go along with a common approach.

Steven Rose ● 701d

Ed. Don't have time to go into much detail. I'm not a political expert but didn't the Labour Party come into its own in the 1920s-30s to alleviate and compensate from the excesses of capitalists that meant many workers lived and died in poverty and industrial accidents because they were expendable?I'd say the US is a prime example of capitalism where waiters expect to get a 20-25% tip as they aren't paid a living wage. In the social democratic Nordic countries where they are paid a living wage waiting staff, etc sometimes consider tipping an insult as they are adequately paid, as a Danish taxi driver told me in 1979 when I was going to give him a tip. 

Michael Ixer ● 701d

Perhaps those more educated than I in various political philosophies can correct me but if wages are so low that the state has to supplement them then surely this is not true capitalism. It leads to a bigger state with more interference in people's lives. Isn't that a left philosophy? If wages are artificially kept low by importing more labour by the state it does look to me more of a left than right wing policy.A bigger state with lower wages requires more taxes too which again is a left philosophy.

Ed Robinson ● 701d

Thank you for this information, Michael!

Ivonne Holliday ● 701d

And even more crazy bureaucracy resulting from Brexit. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/travel/travel-news/brits-staying-friends-spain-warned-30438907#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16894373802281&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailystar.co.uk%2Ftravel%2Ftravel-news%2Fbrits-staying-friends-spain-warned-30438907

Michael Ixer ● 701d

Now the the Mail's Revenue Officer says Brexit was bad for their business ... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-daily-mail-leave-eu-advertising-b2375561.html

Michael Ixer ● 701d

Ed, I obviously wasn't suggesting a low wage economy is a good thing, certainly not for women; that's certainly against my views. If you'd noticed I was talking about redistribution of wealth to improve those that are less well off or poorly paid? (Plus generating wealth for the benefit of all?) Perhaps that does require taxation - in an equitable way - to move wealth towards the poorer segments of society? That might, of course, mean putting more money into education, social facilities, affordable housing, health care, etc as well as subsidising people in povery so they are in a fit state to earn a living wage. Improving conditions to attract staff doesn't necessarily mean paying lower wages. High tech companies - Google, etc - pay good salaries but also use other benefits to attract or retain staff in a competitive market. (That might include free or subsidised food and drink, recreation areas, sports facilities, paid sabbaticals, free home broadband, etc; some might see that as a way to keep tech employees longer in the office, so I know others who put a high premium on being able to work from home or have flexible working to avoid difficult commutes or to assist with childcare. Interestingly, though, I was once told Microsoft could pay below market rates because it was a good company to have on your CV and, for those that qualified, the stock options were good. Although an MS salary below market rates would still be good!)Of course, in a capitalist economy everything is built around the exploitation of others - that doesn't mean I agree with it just that one must have some realism in one's economic environment. I don’t believe many Labour party members believe in a low wage economy - at least none I know do; still, perhaps my sample is less representative than yours.Anyway, isn't AI going to take away all our jobs and generate future wealth; then everyone can play all day and be given free provisions to live on while the bots slave away ... until the bots rights organisation starts protesting :-)

Michael Ixer ● 702d

Of course work conditions are important but to suggest wages aren't is obviously equally wrong. With wages of HGV drivers dropping following EU enlargement are you suggesting cheaper female drivers could have been found if conditions were  better? Low pay and poor conditions are almost always linked!The robbing Peter to pay Paul is the tax payer picking up the bill to make up for low wages through working benefits.Ultimately it comes down to if you believe in a low pay economy which has been the case for decades or if a different model should be followed.Labour definitely believe in a low pay economy. With the  current Conservative government it is not that clear.Low pay is not a left or right issue. Oddly enough it is not even a Brexit issue.The Labour UK government choose to have no controls following EU enlargement. Increase the supply of labour with all the known consequences. They would probably do the same again.

Ed Robinson ● 702d

Sovereignty is fairly meaningless in 21st century. We signed it away with NATO - in part, for our own projection - but it does mean if, for example, Latvia or Estonia were attacked by Russia we're effectively committed to go to war! Parliament has also willingly agreed to let WTO mediation supesede its authorities. Then there's all the UN and European Council treaties we're signatory to. The UK was at least a leader in influencing EU directives and being part of it gave us more clout in influencing world agreements. Higher salaries are a "good thing" but the problem is Peter is being robbed to pay Paul in a shrinking labour pool. More British lorry drivers probably means fewer carers or waiters ... in fact one reason for the shortage of HGV drivers was the conditions, women were put off by poor sanitary coditons at service stations, etc, not, apparently, by poor wages. Obvious all wages - those of teachers, lecturers, post people, nurses, doctors, carers, train drivers, etc - need to be at a level they can afford not just basics but decent holidays, entertainment, etc but that means both redistribution of wealth (the UK isn't poor, wealth is just unfairly distributed) and generating more wealth. There's no evidence that leaving the EU has assisted in either boosting the economy to generate extra wealth or redistributed any. With all the business closures, and an NHS and care system on the verge of collapse the opposite seems to be the case :-(

Michael Ixer ● 702d

As you say, things are so bad here that ‘it’s never been a better time to emigrate’ so hardly a benefit of Brexit! Interesting and probably significant that the question as to the benefits of Brexit has only been answered by 2 remainers. Seeming silence from Brexit supporters.It would actually be good to hear something positive - animal welfare?

Jane Carter ● 702d

"would genuinely like to know what specifically is better now?"I'm not sure if you are asking me, I voted remain, I'm not a believer in parliamentary sovereignty, I would prefer a written constitution with basic protection for its citizens.But there are a few things that are better:It's never been a better time for young people to emigrate. With high housing cost, student loans, poor government and opposition, high crime and poor social services, not to forget high interest rates. Absolutely nothing to offer young people with no possible change for the next decade no matter which flavour of the uniparty wins.People also now have a better understanding of how bad some of the UK institutions are, be it regulators of energy and water or the political parties.Some things the government got right such as HGV drivers pay is better however I'm not sure the government will replicate that success in other areas such as care workers or nurses. There was a government spokesperson highlighting with better pay more people had returned to work.

Ed Robinson ● 702d

Food import checks:https://amp.theguardian.com/food/2023/jul/13/next-phase-brexit-bad-for-diet-health-wealth

Philippa Bond ● 703d

Yes, for the worse,  Brexit has happened. It's now a damage limitation exercise. (It's doubtful the EU would want us rejoining at present given the damage done to the UK's economy by Truss's brief period in power?) There's so many areas needing repair:> Sunak's started to sort out Northern Ireland with the Windsor Framework but it seems more is needed - NI still hasn't got a proper government.> There's a deal on the table for rejoining Horizon, I can't see why there are delays in signing it?> Similarly, something needs to be initiated to rejoin Erasmus; the Turing scheme has to prove itself. It does allow access to universities around the globe rather than just in the EU but it's there are reports of uncertainty because of delays in funding and issues with obtaining visas, both of which were not an issue with Erasmus.> The problem caused to touring musicians by the inadequate withdrawal agreement must be rectified.> If train travel between the UK and EU is to replace air travel - vital to alleviate climate change - then to keeps costs and travel time to a minimum there must be seem less border travel negotiated between the UK & EU.> There still appear to be problems shipping personal items between the UK and EU when relocating residence.> The change in pet passports is causing issues for many, including blind people with guide dogs; presumbly something that could be easily fixed?Oh, well, …

Michael Ixer ● 704d

Ed, I do not understand what you mean about UK institutions.  Would you mind clarifying this for me, please?  Many thanks.

Ivonne Holliday ● 704d

for what? Yes that’s the crucial question. I deeply regret that we are no longer in the EU but we are where we are and, yes Ed, as a remainer,  I accept, sorrowfully, the result of the referendum so I would genuinely like to know what specifically is better now? Vague  claims of sovereignty don’t count.

Jane Carter ● 704d

Yes and the logic is sound that in theory those farmers could receive more subsidies if the EU didn’t take their cut.In practice no UK government, of what ever colour of Thatcher, likes to hand out cash to the regions.Unfortunately it is difficult to both believe in remain and UK institutions. Which is what remain was trying to sell.

Ed Robinson ● 705d

Sue,Farmers up and down the country, regardless of the wealth or lack of it, received subsidies from the EU.  Remember the set aside?Also, the fishermen in Cornwall, after voting for Brexit, demanded that the government paid them the same subsidies as the EU did.......

Ivonne Holliday ● 706d

I will never, ever, forgive the government for withdrawing from the Eerasmus and the Entent Cordiale Scholar schemes.  No words can explain the travesty of not being on the Horizon programme.All truly backward steps for what?

Ivonne Holliday ● 706d

Quote from today's UK Internet Governance Forum concerning the UK falling behind the US and EU in terms of technology investment and development: "it's a tragedy the UK is no longer part of Erasmus and Horizon" and concern how long it will take to get back up to speed assuming we must rejoin Horizon ...

Michael Ixer ● 706d

"Sorry but why under 35?Sounds like a scheme to import cheap youth labour.No doubt expecting workers to live in overcrowded accommodation with low wage and poor conditions."This was always the way.  Cheap foreign labour was one of the main drivers why many big corporations wanted to remain in the EU. Unfortunately that endless source of cheap labour put many small companies and sole traders out of business. Let's also not forget the greedy bastards like Heseltine who was paid £90,000 a year in land subsidies from the EU and desperately wants us to rejoin.  I wonder why?🤔

Sue Hammond ● 706d

Amazing,  New Zealand joins the EU Horizon programme but the UK's PM obviously hasn't a clue about science and how it works?https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3728https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66116938

Michael Ixer ● 706d

Sorry but why under 35?Sounds like a scheme to import cheap youth labour.No doubt expecting workers to live in overcrowded accommodation with low wage and poor conditions.I heard a good argument that low wages reduce the UK's productivity and ultimately lead to higher taxation as the wages are not sustainable for people to build their lives.

Ed Robinson ● 708d

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/08/tory-brexiter-george-eustice-visas-young-eu-workers-labour-shortage

Michael Ixer ● 708d