General Election 2017

[Alan M]

The shortages list - there is nothing on there covering the building trade, and yet all builders will tell you there is a chronic shortage of trained people in the building trades and that this is one reason why (a) we don't build enough houses and (b) we have a lot of EU migrant builders.

There are approx 50,000 migrant workers in the NHS at the moment.

Of course, if it is annual migration figures we are reducing, then none of these would appear in the figures as they are already here. Presumably.

Do we include seasonal labour on farms etc? Or do we expect hordes of mythical UK workers to do the fruit and veg picking?

On the one hand we praise the low unemployment figures, while on the other hand we say all the jobs are being taken by migrants. The unemployed do not necessarily relate directly to the vacancies - an aging ex-steelworker in South Wales can hardly take a job as a dentist in London. Extreme example, I know.

Do we include overseas students in the numbers? The Conservatives say we should. So that's a few tens of thousand already. Or do we not let them come to study here? If so, how do universities recoup the substantial lost income? Not to mention language schools - down here in the EFL capital of the UK there are 50,000 language students per year at all the EFL schools. Admittedly many for periods of less than three months, but quite a large number are here for a year to get the qualification they seek.

And one final point to throw in the mix - currently there is an evidenced net contribution to the national kitty from all migrants (including benefits in the calculations where they apply). If we reduce the numbers, we reduce the tax income. Where do we recover that income from. One independent study reported today that a 50% reduction in current numbers (so still nearly 150,000) would create a 5bn hole in government finances by 2020.

It is ridiculously complex, and anyone who says "we will reduce it to under 100,000" is I fear pandering to popular opinion rather than looking at the cold facts.

 

[Nicki]

Of course, if it is annual migration figures we are reducing, then none of these would appear in the figures as they are already here. Presumably.

It's stated as annual net (im)migration which could be reduced simply by having more UK citizens leave the country; quite an appealing option if (when) the Tories get in. The number of immigrants could remain the same or even increase and their targets be reached. I'm not sure that's quite what people had in mind!!

 

[Alan M]

Given that the manifesto also announces that all doctor contracts will be re-"negotiated", I sense an improvement in Australian and New Zealand doctor/patient quotas in the offing. Given the chronic shortage of GPs reported this morning, that's a bit worrying ...

 

[Ben]

There is no such thing as hard Brexit and soft Brexit,We leave EU or we dont, Soft Brexit is a term invented by the remoaners where everything stays the same.

I see as a "hard Brexit" as Britain leaving the single market and EU Customs Union and having so-called 'control' over our borders, laws and judicial system. I see a "soft Brexit" as Britain maintaining access to the single market and EU Customs Union and abiding by the rules of being a member of these clubs - i.e. free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. Countries such as Norway and Switzerland do exactly this, and maybe even an independent Scotland would have to consider such a route? So it really isn't as simple as "out means out" as there are variety of trade deals and paths Britain could take.

There is a clear choice in these two options and one in which I don't believe the EU referendum decided. The fact is that 48% of people voted against leaving the single market, and I'd imagine that quite a few leave voters also didn't vote out for Britain to lose it's single market access. So the Brexiters' claim that a hard Brexit is what the British people voted for is highly contestable in my view. Their talk of leaving the negotiations without a deal is bordering on stupid and would in my opinion damage our economy. I'm quite clear in my belief that the closest possible access to the single market is an absolute must when it comes to any deal with the EU, anything less I fear would jeopardise jobs, business and the economy. So I think Labour are right to say that we shouldn't leave the EU in the event of no deal.

As for Theresa May sticking to the "tens of thousands" immigration pledge, I think it's both unworkable and counter-productive as without migrants, so many of our sectors (especially the NHS) would be on their knees.

 

[Andy]

You call it "hard Brexit", I call it just Brexit.

Ben, you said 48% of people voted to stay in the single market, so by that logic 52% of people voted to leave the single market?

But let me have a guess, the 52% didn't know what they are voting for, did they?

And for those 52% there is only one party offering what they want.

The Lib Dems offer of a 2nd referendum on the deal is the worst negotiating tactic heard of. All that will mean is the EU will put the worst deal possible on offer, knowing that if it goes to the vote, they'll see the UK remain.

Still, no one really knows Labours stance. That comes directly from their leader. No one has a clue where Corbyn stands with the EU.

Labours manifesto states that if there is no deal, the UK will not leave. Again, that's a very weak negotiating position. Once again the EU will know that if no deal is met, the UK will remain.

Like it of not, it's the Tories and UKIP that are offering the strongest negotiation position. If you're prepared to walk away without a deal, all the sudden the EU will start giving you things that you want, because they know no deal is bad for them.

The UKs economy is the same size as the smallest 20 EU nations combined. That's how big of a hole the UK will leave. It's the same as the smallest 20 EU countries leaving at once.

 

[Alan M]

Ben, we are not going to go for a Norway/Swiss style deal, that much is clear. Under May, the option is clearly stated as out at all costs. I personally think that people should have the opportunity to decide at the end of the negotiating process whether they are happy with the deal on the table, or whether they would prefer just to walk off into the sunset, but they have already voted, for good or ill, to head for the exit door. As it stands, it doesn't look like that opportunity will be offered, so we will be relying on the negotiating skills of Johnson, Davies and co (why May thinks she has to keep saying she will be doing the negotiating I have no idea, but I doubt she will, she'll have a country to run).
Both the EU and the UK will have to adjust their budgetting etc once we've left. But I still can't see a queue of countries clamouring to do UK trade deals, while they will happily carry on with their EU deals.
And I see Boris has made another embarrassing foray into the world of international diplomacy by telling Indian Sikhs about the benefits of Brexit on the whisky trade. Please keep fingers crossed that he's one of those "reshuffled" after the election, presuming President May gets in.

 

[Ben]

You call it "hard Brexit", I call it just Brexit.

Ben, you said 48% of people voted to stay in the single market, so by that logic 52% of people voted to leave the single market?

But let me have a guess, the 52% didn't know what they are voting for, did they?

I haven't said they didn't know what they were voting for. I have simply said that not all of the 52% who voted to leave the EU wanted to leave the single market. I know people who voted out in the hope they would get a Norway-like deal, and as Alan alludes to, the Tory manifesto makes it clear that we're not getting that. So I don't think the Tories are offering what everyone wants, as no one would have wanted to crash the economy and jobs and business which I fear will happen if we don't get a good deal.

The Lib Dems offer of a 2nd referendum on the deal is the worst negotiating tactic heard of. All that will mean is the EU will put the worst deal possible on offer, knowing that if it goes to the vote, they'll see the UK remain.

Still, no one really knows Labours stance. That comes directly from their leader. No one has a clue where Corbyn stands with the EU.

Labours manifesto states that if there is no deal, the UK will not leave. Again, that's a very weak negotiating position. Once again the EU will know that if no deal is met, the UK will remain.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.
I think holding another referendum on the terms of any trade deal with the EU is a sensible idea from the Lib Dems. Surely if the British people voted for Brexit, they should then have a say on the final destination and be able to either approve or reject it? In a democracy, I don't think that job should be simply left to parliament.
As for Labour's stance, I think it's quite clear, namely that Britain will not leave the EU in the event of a bad deal and no deal. That is sensible and will serve to protect the economic interests of Britain.

Like it of not, it's the Tories and UKIP that are offering the strongest negotiation position. If you're prepared to walk away without a deal, all the sudden the EU will start giving you things that you want, because they know no deal is bad for them.

The UKs economy is the same size as the smallest 20 EU nations combined. That's how big of a hole the UK will leave. It's the same as the smallest 20 EU countries leaving at once.

Personally, I think that by saying you're prepared to walk away without a deal, is giving the EU ammunition to punish Britain and deter other members from leaving. Like it or lump it, Britain is in a negotiation with 27 other countries all with different interests, so this confrontational "we're better than you' approach isn't going to work as much as May thinks it will. This assumption all seems to be built on the idea that the EU needs us more than we need them, yet almost half of our exports are with the EU as well as millions of jobs.

 

[Knutsfordian]

I think there's lots of confusion around whether we should stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, as though this was some sort of choice we could make in Isolation from the rest of the constraints that are imposed on EU members through the freedom of movement, capital etc.

Having decided to leave the EU and not conform to the EU requirements on freedom of movement etc, we cannot be in the single market./customs union. That's why Gove, Johnson et al said during the referendum that we would be outside the single market.

Theresa May is proposing that we negotiate a trade agreement with the EU (which most people hope will give us reasonable access to markets) but if that is vetoed by one of the 27 countries or regional parliaments then the fall back position is no deal and we walk away, otherwise by default the position is that by vetoing the deal the 27 countries could effectively bring us back into the EU against the democratic wishes of the British electorate (hope that makes sense).

Should we have another referendum? I think not. Could we really stand a re-run of the referendum debate with all that entails? In my mind the decision was made based on the fact we would be leaving the EU and single market. If the government can negotiate a trade deal that sticks so much the better as long as they don't spend £100 billion to do it, but otherwise we are off and out of the EU. The government needs to plan for the no deal option and be ready to act if it happens - not as with the referendum result !

 

[Nicki]

In my mind the decision was made based on the fact we would be leaving the EU and single market.

What do you think that meant to Joe Public in terms of freedom of movement? Freedom of movement or freedom of movement with conditions or no freedom of movement?
i.e., what do you believe people thought they were voting for? I'll assume it's not the first as that's the status quo.

 

[Knutsfordian]

I think it meant no freedom of movement as control of our borders was a key pledge by the Brexit campaign. By not conforming to the EU rules on freedom of movement this would allow movement of EU workers into the UK to be controlled within the overall immigration figures

 

[Nicki]

OK - I think that's my equivalent of freedom of movement with conditions (poor use of the term my me).

Not sure how they're going to control UK citizen emigration though, which would seem to be a part of net annual immigration. I don't know if they've used that term to be deliberately ambiguous, it's just slack use, or somewhere there is clarification that net calculations will not take movement of UK citizens into account.

 

[Knutsfordian]

Good point, but I think the immigration policy (people in) will be based on a set of criteria and conditions to decide who can come into the UK irrespective of how many people leave the UK - not quite the UKIP position of 1 in = 1 out, but moving towards that. Hence the manifesto intent/ambition to get immigration down to below 100,000

 

[Nicki]

Hence the manifesto intent/ambition to get immigration down to below 100,000

But it's not stated as getting immigration down to below 100,000, it's stated as getting net immigration (or net migration) down to below 100,000. In theory that can happen with an increase in immigration!!!

I don't know if I'm being supremely dim or they have defined explicitly that net immigration figures WILL NOT include movement of UK citizens (which the usual definition does). If they haven't, then that is incredibly misleading!!

 

[Nicki]

Answering my own point... it does include movement of Brits (and is therefore a pretty daft ... and misleading target). This from 'Immigration: The Manifesto Challenge'. http://www.britishfuture.org/wp-con...mmigration-Manifesto-2017.-British-Future.pdf


Since emigration levels are not subject to government control, a new headline target should be about the desired level of immigration of foreign nationals to the UK, rather than net migration, though the government may take shifting levels of emigration into account too when considering its immigration targets for the following year. Another alternative to an overall immigration target would be to set specific targets, or limits, for those migration flows which the government intended to limit or reduce.

Immigration statistics make sense to the public and help to enable an informed public debate when they fit the public’s own common sense intuitions about what is and is not ‘immigration’. It would be better to report the return of British nationals to the UK and student migration separately, and to omit these from the headline target. Those migration flows that are not subject to specific numerical targets – such as EU skilled migration in the system proposed above, and refugee protection – should be reported transparently, and scrutinised and debated.

 

[Alan M]

Now that must qualify as the most intellectually thoughtful post of this thread.

But it doesn't lend itself easily to a tabloid headline.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Hmmmm...

So May promises significant curbs on net immigration which in her previous role as Home Secretary she absolutely failed to deliver on!

Added to this on 11 separate occasions she was also recorded saying that she would not call an early general election.

She has also declined to go head to head with the other main party leaders in a live TV debate during which her stance on her party's policies would be open to direct challenge on scrutiny by her closest challengers.

Is this an example of strong and stable leadership or cowardly self-interest?

Frankly she is a liar and a coward.

Oh, and let us not forget why we find ourselves in this sorry position.

It is simply down to the fact that Posh Dave and Gideon were so scared of being given a bloody nose by UKIP at the last General Election that they promised a referendum to prevent civil war and mass defections from the Tories to UKIP without thinking through the consequences.

Come the vote we were left with a very simplistic choice - and I fully admit that this was equally the fault of the remain campaign as the out brigade.

But the outcome is a great deal more complicated than many people expected.

Nearly 12 months on, do we have a greater control over our borders?

No.

In a further 12 months time will we?

No.

Can we as a nation prosper and survive without the number of immigrants that come to work and study in the UK, pay their taxes, make a real and positive contribution to society and add to what is the most wonderful, diverse, tolerant and talented nation in the world?

No.

In my opinion, Brexit and all it stands for threatens the very core and nature that I think makes Britain great and sets our nation apart from the other great nations.

And I am hugely disappointed that the party I support has not taken a more supportive and stronger stance in its stance on Europe.

But in the end, despite the platitudes and warm words, the Tory manifesto is, as ever, a continuation of their mantra of self-interest for the more privileged in society as opposed to the benefit of the majority.

I've been around long enough to know that Tory Leopards don't change their spots.......

 

[Alan M]

Theresa May is proposing that we negotiate a trade agreement with the EU (which most people hope will give us reasonable access to markets) but if that is vetoed by one of the 27 countries or regional parliaments then the fall back position is no deal and we walk away, otherwise by default the position is that by vetoing the deal the 27 countries could effectively bring us back into the EU against the democratic wishes of the British electorate (hope that makes sense).

Should we have another referendum? I think not. Could we really stand a re-run of the referendum debate with all that entails? In my mind the decision was made based on the fact we would be leaving the EU and single market.

Surely the default position in any negotiation is that if agreement is not reached you continue negotiating, not that you just walk off in a huff? You might go into the negotiation with red lines, but these red lines are not necessarily set in stone because you might get concessions in other areas which compensate. All negotiations are a trade-off and all start from two positions that are pretty wide apart.

The problems with referenda have been exposed by the way the last one was organised and the ongoing divisions that it has caused, or at least brought to the surface. But that's the fault of those who have since run away from the problem.

As for the "in my mind" sentence - yes, precisely, that is your interpretation of the question on the voting paper. You cannot (nor can I) say that this was everyone's interpretation. I believe that for some it was a decision "based on the fact that we would be leaving the EU and stopping immigration", for others the "and" part covered many other aspects (gaining control of the law-making process, giving more money to the NHS, having access to bendy bananas, or whatever). It is, as AF says, far too complex an issue to be reduced to such a simple black and white question.

 

[Knutsfordian]

Don't disagree that if a first draft deal is rejected then there would be further rounds of negotiation, but always against the backdrop that if all parties couldn't agree then the UK maintains the right to walk away.

All elections are based on individuals interpreting the information provided as they chose to do so. The EU referendum was no different. And yes you can argue that some issues are so complex they shouldn't be put to a single vote and I wouldn't disagree, but this exit was always going to happen!!

Parliament subverted the will of the people on entry to the Common Market. There was clear hostility to closer union. The Lisbon and Mastricht treaties were bundled through parliament by a political elite who knew what they were doing was wrong by the UK and would have been rejected if people had been given a choice. You reap what you sow.

Not everything is/was bad about the EU, but the profligate waste of money and resources, a failure to accept that urgent change is required, the bombastic approach by un-elected commissioners and officers has compounded the issue. A golden chance to save our membership was spurned when the EU offered Cameron a few beans as part of a re-negotiation of our terms. People saw this for what it was. Even now as part of this negotiation the discussions could be framed around a set of protocols that other countries could adopt if they wished to leave the EU, but they (EU mandarins) are so desperate to maintain the status quo and their funding they can't see that they are driving the project to complete failure. Getting out of the EU will be painful , but we are better of out now than when this project disintegrates into chaos as it almost certainly will. The black hole left by the UK's withdrawal means that other member states will have to step up to the plate and provide more funding. They can't or won't do this. Greece is already back in recession, so how long before the pressures on the economic welfare of the EU are resurrected?

 

[Andy]

Nearly 12 months on, do we have a greater control over our borders?

We haven't left the European Union yet.

And as for your hysterical whims about the World will fall apart post Brexit, you clearly fail to grasp the concept of what Controlled immigration actually is.

 

[Andy]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies