The Brexit Thread

The weekend was actually pretty big with regards to Brexit. As of 1st January 2022, rules require businesses (in most cases those receiving the goods in the UK, but in some those sending them here) to notify the customs authorities of precisely what is being sent to Great Britain from the EU, and from where. The rules were in effect waived throughout 2021. The process will require the exporter to acquire and then submit an Eori number (economic operators registration and identification number) to their UK customers so the importers can then input a lot of data and send it off to the UK authorities.

From 1st July 2022, UK exporters will also need export health certificates or veterinary certificates if they are exporting products of animal origin or foodstuffs.

The benefits of Brexit continue to grow. Wouldn't be surprised if some business, both in the UK and EU, just say... stuff it.

pluk said:

A hugely selective deduction to fit a narrative and out of all context. Well done?

Click to expand...

What context is it out of? It was a fact according to that data. Admittedly selective, but hardly a narrative. Proportionally more EU migrants are working than non-EU migrants.

Tom said:

What context is it out of? It was a fact according to that data. Admittedly selective, but hardly a narrative. Proportionally more EU migrants are working than non-EU migrants.

Click to expand...

It takes almost no thought to realise why that would be.

Many migrants from around the world are fleeing persecution, war, famine, or whatever other hardship that causes them to need to not be where they were and be somewhere like here instead. That proportion don't come here to work, with a plan, with a skill, and often without a word of English. They are in the short to medium term practically unemployable here.

The number fleeing any such hardship from the EU would be somewhere at or very close to zero. They would not be choosing to put themselves in such a position of hardship or umemployability.

It would make zero sense if more EU nationals were here unemployed than from the rest if the world after years of EU free movement and political stability. It would basically never be the case. So to use that number to try to make a point about the 'value' of either sort of immigration or that EU immigration was somehow 'better' than rest of the world immigration is just stupid, and crass considering the underlying humanitarian issues at the heart of it.

The percentage of asylum seekers making up the statistics is very small, but I was never talking about any ‘value’ of the two pools. The issue is that the majority of cheap immigration labour came from the EU, and that requires either replacement from somewhere else, or massive business change enforced by the government. My purpose for making the earlier post was that I felt it needed clarifying that more workers were coming from the EU than from outside it because it appeared it was being downplayed versus non-EU migration.

The main point I am trying to make is that it was always likely that the government would turn to other countries for cheap labour and use visa access as a trade negotiating tool rather than seriously address the reasons why more U.K. residents aren’t taking up the jobs. It’s only if it affects poll ratings sufficiently would they ever do anything otherwise, because after the electorate, it is business that the government answers to.

Tom said:

I was never talking about any ‘value’ of the two pools.

Click to expand...

I can't think of any reason for quoting that statistic that to do just that? To make it appear controlled rest of world migration was less successful and more problematic than uncontrolled EU migration.

Tom said:

The main point I am trying to make is that it was always likely that the government would turn to other countries for cheap labour...
The issue is that the majority of cheap immigration labour came from the EU, and that requires either replacement from somewhere else, or massive business change enforced by the government.

Click to expand...

The opening up to the EU wasn't designed or planned to bring in cheap labour in anything like the numbers it did. They anticipated 13,000 a year but within a decade a million came. It broke any natural supply and demand of labour in the lower paid job market from which it has never properly recovered, to the detriment of people doing those jobs. Jack Straw who oversaw it now concedes it was a disaster.

The current immigration system allows visas for students and those working in areas where we require skills or volume of workers, it is not targeted primarily at cheap labour but obviously includes some. It is a huge and quite sudden change, exacerbated by covid, it will obviously take some time to find the right balance.

We’re in agreement. The issue is being discussed was government policy and the prospect of it changing going forward.

As for politicians saying it was a disaster, they mean electorally. They were too complacent to realise it would become an issue at the ballot box is what they really mean.

The evidence does suggest migration has suppressed wages in the lowest unskilled parts of the workforce (bottom 5% earners), but increased wages elsewhere. It has not had an effect on unemployment rates. The number of jobs in an economy is not fixed, more migrants also leads to more investment and more jobs being created.

I still feel immigration is often a perceived problem rather than a real one. It hasn't made people unemployed and unless you're doing an unskilled job it hasn't suppressed wages for you either.

Tom said:

As for politicians saying it was a disaster, they mean electorally. They were too complacent to realise it would become an issue at the ballot box is what they really mean.

Click to expand...

They don't. Well, not only electorally.

Tom said:

We’re in agreement. The issue is being discussed was government policy and the prospect of it changing going forward.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Our government are not currently trying to flood the market with a low skilled workforce from outside the EU, they are controlling immigration in ways they couldn't or wouldn't under EU membership.

Alsty said:

I still feel immigration is often a perceived problem rather than a real one. It hasn't made people unemployed and unless you're doing an unskilled job it hasn't suppressed wages for you either.

Click to expand...

It may not have made 'people' unemployed as a whole of the population, but it certainly has on individual basis by certain industry, and has adversely effected the lowest paid in society making things worse for those who were already the most vulnerable. Pretty disastrous then.

pluk said:

They don't. Well, not only electorally.



Indeed. Our government are not currently trying to flood the market with a low skilled workforce from outside the EU, they are controlling immigration in ways they couldn't or wouldn't under EU membership.

Click to expand...

Which politicians are saying it was a disasters socially and/or economically? The ones that allowed it to take place and president over it (Jack Straw and other Labour figures)...or the ones that presided over it and did little to try and change it for many years (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats)?

As for what the government is doing I'd suggest they are displaying early signs of looking to open up more immigration to cheaper sources of labour rather than fix issues in the resident labour market, but I am happy to be proven wrong in time on this and won't overstate my case as it's more of a perception. Numbers have certainly fallen off a cliff-edge, but I am not sure the past two years can be the best period on which to describe this as active control.

In a nutshell I would be very interested to know if hotel demand for example was normal right now and businesses couldn't fill minimum wage jobs due to a lack of EU labour access. Would the government really turn round and say "tough, pay more money" and stick to that position for the long haul? Or would we perhaps see yesterday's Eastern European worker becoming today's South Asian worker, and the wages staying basically the same?

Admittedly with semi-biased language from the Guardian in October 2020, but the figures do seem to align with my views on government direction of travel:

To go full circle back to my original immigration post, the reason I bought it up was because there are people who voted for Brexit because of immigration. Some of the more extreme people will even expect immigration to stop or be significantly reduced because of it.

My point is that immigration will not stop because of Brexit. I sense there's no desire to reduce reliance on migrant workers either. If people voted just because of immigrants "coming here, taking our jobs" then I don't think they'll be impressed with the way it's going.

Alsty said:

To go full circle back to my original immigration post, the reason I bought it up was because there are people who voted for Brexit because of immigration. Some of the more extreme people will even expect immigration to stop or be significantly reduced because of it.

My point is that immigration will not stop because of Brexit. I sense there's no desire to reduce reliance on migrant workers either. If people voted just because of immigrants "coming here, taking our jobs" then I don't think they'll be impressed with the way it's going.

Click to expand...

Also virtually the point(s) I was trying to make in an admittedly long-winded way. If you look at the government's list of jobs where there are so-called skills shortages, it's quite scary that you could have someone paid 20% less than the going rate for the job (if I'm reading the new system correctly), with a floor of £20,000 for engineering jobs among many others.

Is there seriously a labour shortage if you can't get someone to take a £20k job? What about if the job was £30k, would there still be a labour shortage? If the costs need to be passed onto the consumer then that can legitimately be called the cost of Brexit and reduced immigration - and maybe people would be OK with that. If they aren't OK with it, then that might possibly be because they were promised lower prices by Brexit campaigners.

I'm thinking that this government skills shortage list just becomes another thing private companies lobby government to put roles onto because they don't want to pay more or invest in colleges and universities etc.

The naivety of the British Government over how Northern Ireland would be affected due to Brexit is incredible. Their own agreement is now not acceptable. The agreement that THEY signed up to.

How does she intend to solve this one? More chest puffing and flag waving?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59927034

The Brexit-wanting loony demographic the Tories successfully zeroed in on in 2019 had no regard for Northern Ireland. It follows that however much the agreement shafted NI was ultimately of no concern in the era of a certain 3 word slogan being all that cut through in politics.

This is what happens with populism.

What happens to NI post-Brexit-vote should have been determined before the referendum, but of course foresight wasn't Mr. Cameron's strong suit either...

AstroDan said:

The naivety of the British Government over how Northern Ireland would be affected due to Brexit is incredible. Their own agreement is now not acceptable. The agreement that THEY signed up to.

How does she intend to solve this one? More chest puffing and flag waving?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59927034

Click to expand...

Surely far form that they should have never signed it in the first place as it broke the act of union. Sometimes I wish Ed Miliband had won the election so instead of all this Brexit stuff we could all be having a nice bacon sandwich.

Our good vegetarian friends accepted of course.

I'm surprised the good people of northern Ireland have been as tolerant as they have. Whether Unionist or Republican, they've been shafted by the UK government for the last few years over all this. Before Brexit, it seems only Tony Blair and John Major were talking loudly about this massive issue. It seems like these people were mostly ignored during the campaign.

Ah yes, Liz Truss... the pro-remainer who changed colours when it became politically advantageous. Much like Boris Johnson and David Frost. She has to continue taking the same hardline stance with the EU as her predecessor, else risks harming her ambitions of becoming the next prime minister.

In any case she can bluster about Article 16 as much as she wants. The Northern Ireland Protocol is part of the legally binding Withdrawal Agreement that the UK voluntarily signed. Article 16 is limited in scope and you cannot just unilaterally ignore parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol, no matter what some hardline Brexiteers think. Renege on that and the EU might simply pull the rug on the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

AstroDan said:

The weekend was actually pretty big with regards to Brexit. As of 1st January 2022, rules require businesses (in most cases those receiving the goods in the UK, but in some those sending them here) to notify the customs authorities of precisely what is being sent to Great Britain from the EU, and from where. The rules were in effect waived throughout 2021. The process will require the exporter to acquire and then submit an Eori number (economic operators registration and identification number) to their UK customers so the importers can then input a lot of data and send it off to the UK authorities.

From 1st July 2022, UK exporters will also need export health certificates or veterinary certificates if they are exporting products of animal origin or foodstuffs.

The benefits of Brexit continue to grow. Wouldn't be surprised if some business, both in the UK and EU, just say... stuff it.

Click to expand...

ah the good old EORI number - what a nightmare this is proving to be - most ERP systems arent designed to handle these

throw in the TSS requests for dealing with NI and it really has become a ball ache

Sorry to bump this thread, but I’ve been having a little read back through the thread, and I noticed that this site’s membership, aside from a few exceptions, is generally pretty strongly anti-Brexit and has been since day 1. And reading through the thread, I noticed that much of the recent criticism is down to the way in which the government has dealt with leaving the EU, so that leads me to ask; if you don’t mind me asking, is it leaving the EU in principle that you guys don’t like, or is it the way in which the whole saga of Brexit has been carried out? Or is it both?

Personally, I’ll admit that I have never been a supporter of Brexit in principle, and had I had the chance to vote in a Brexit referendum at any stage, I would have voted Remain any day of the week. I personally liked many of the benefits the EU bought, such as funding, easy exports, freedom of movement and the like, and I also liked being part of a multi-cultural, diverse group of countries and being able to easily offer a home for people from different countries regardless of their situation. Personally, I think immigration and giving people from other countries the right to live and work in Britain has had a very positive impact on this country.

However, I wouldn’t say I have an especially hardline opinion on Brexit, and I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both sides of the hypothetical Remain/Leave coin. As much as I am a Remainer, and liked being in the EU, I can see why people voted to Leave and understand their viewpoint; many people had perfectly rational reasons for voting to leave. And ultimately, Leave did win; the people spoke, and Leave came out with the highest vote percentage. So with that in mind, I’d personally rather look towards the future and try to carve ourselves the best possible path forward now that we’re outside of the EU. I personally think it’s too premature for me to declare Brexit a bust, and rightly or wrongly, I think it does present us with numerous opportunities if we choose to take them.

Matt N said:

is it leaving the EU in principle that you guys don’t like, or is it the way in which the whole saga of Brexit has been carried out? Or is it both?

Click to expand...

Mainly that the most of the reasons why we should leave were either something our government could have done anyway or just made up nonsense (like bendy bananas). The whole leave campaign was based around falsehoods. So against it as it took away many many benefits and was carried out by lieing to people (where is the £350m for the NHS?)

Matt N said:

I personally liked many of the benefits the EU bought, such as funding, easy exports, freedom of movement and the like, and I also liked being part of a multi-cultural, diverse group of countries and being able to easily offer a home for people from different countries regardless of their situation.

Click to expand...

This also sums up why many people don't like brexit, it has made it harder for me to travel and much harder to live and work in Europe. Also harder & more expensive to buy goods from overseas.

Matt N said:

I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both sides of the hypothetical Remain/Leave coin.

Click to expand...

What are the advantages of leaving?