Brexit negotiations

[MBE2017]

http://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-figures-are-far-lower-than-previously-thought-2017-8?IR=T

Some say things like "current net migration figures mean that a population the size of Liverpool moves to the UK every 2 years - it's unsustainable blah blah".

Absolutely right. But anyone can look around and clearly see that a net population the size of Liverpool is not arriving to live in the UK long-term every 2 years. Come on people.

With over 2400 towns and cities throughout the UK, I'm surprised you find it hard to believe the figures, they might be lower, just as they might be a lot more. It is after all only an average of 50 immigrants per town and city per year based on the figure you doubt below, my town has an estimated population of 220-230,000, with 12% being immigrants.

These official figures are probably very low estimates, some Polish people I chat too estimate 30,000 fellow Poles in my town according to their estimates, the above 12% figure is for all immigrants, not just Poles, you can do the maths.

http://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-figures-are-far-lower-than-previously-thought-2017-8?IR=T

That means the current net migration figures of 248,000 per year are actually closer to 140,000 per year. Those figures, all along, have been a monumental lie.

The move back for some immigrants is no huge shock, many have been complaining of lack of work for the last 2/3 years. The simple fact is no-one is sure on the accuracy of the figures, they could be way out either way.

 

[Mr D]

Some come here to study and leave. Some come here for a time then go elsewhere. Some have found since the referendum they do not feel like they should stay. Which is sad.

Everyone will have their own reason for going to a country or leaving. At best they can be refused access to the country or told to leave.

 

[KM-Tiger]

That means the current net migration figures of 248,000 per year are actually closer to 140,000 per year. Those figures, all along, have been a monumental lie.

Without proper exit checks we cannot know for certain. Just how hard can it be to scan a passport?

But there is another important statistic which is the number of new NI numbers issued to foreign nationals. Can't find an up to date figure, but I do recall that when published it was way out of line with the apparent immigration figure.

 

[Jeff FV]

Without proper exit checks we cannot know for certain. Just how hard can it be to scan a passport?

This neatly highlights one of my concerns about Brexit.

I absolutely get the argument about "taking back control" - even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I understand the concerns about increasing population due to immigration.

But, as you say, if there are no proper exit checks we can't know for certain who is coming and going.

But we don't need Brexit to accurately record who is coming and going, and I don't think we'll get it after Brexit either (too difficult - although, as you say, how hard to scan a passport? and too expensive)

We could have done an awful lot to satisfy the wishes of many Brexiters, without going for Brexit. e.g controlling non-EU immigration; monitoring who was passing through our border.

It was in our power to do so before Brexit, will be in our power after Brexit, but won't be done, thereby annoying remainers - because they didn't want Brexit - but also Brexiters as they wont be getting the control they want

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Without proper exit checks we cannot know for certain. Just how hard can it be to scan a passport?

The thing is, this was never an EU issue. The UK has recently started carrying out more comprehensive checks which they could have done all along.

Instead, they've relied on random port surveys which are obviously massively unreliable.

Now the Government knows that almost all students end up leaving, they really need to remove those from the net migration statistics. The current figure is simply false and makes immigration seem far, far worse than it really is.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

With over 2400 towns and cities throughout the UK, I'm surprised you find it hard to believe the figures, they might be lower, just as they might be a lot more. It is after all only an average of 50 immigrants per town and city per year based on the figure you doubt below, my town has an estimated population of 220-230,000, with 12% being immigrants.

These official figures are probably very low estimates, some Polish people I chat too estimate 30,000 fellow Poles in my town according to their estimates, the above 12% figure is for all immigrants, not just Poles, you can do the maths.

How would they know any better about the number of Polish immigrants compared to you? It's not like they're all friends.

An important factor to remember is that immigrants are not spread evenly across the UK. There are highly concentrated populations in some places, and almost none in others. I'm from the North East, and in my town I don't know anyone who has ever met an EU migrant.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are hundreds of towns, especially in more rural or northern areas, where there aren't any EU migrants at all.

Just to clarify, the figure I find hard to believe is the close to 250,000 net migration per annum. Now new details have been revealed, and it appears that true net migration is under 150,000, it makes a lot more sense.

But that's the problem with any form of statistic. Much of it is subjective, including the IPS. That considers immigrants as people coming to the UK for one year or more. Why such an arbitrary figure? Is it just because it's a nice round number?

There will be loads of people who stay for 1-2 years and then return home. I know plenty myself who have spent more than a year living in places like Australia and New Zealand before returning.

Contrary to popular belief, not a lot of people are happy to move to a new country and leave all their friends and family behind forever.

Perhaps some sub-groups are inflated, but all we do know is that when you remove temporary students and non-permanent immigrants, you can easily chop 100,000+ off the official figures. They are hugely misleading in terms of the impression they give.

 

[Clinton]

Scott, some calculations put it at a lot more, this one puts it at a lot less. The fact is that nobody really has a clue as to the real numbers. So there's no need to get all excited.

Anyway, the problem is not the numbers!

It's not immigration that people are against, it's the mismatch between numbers in the UK ... and infrastructure.

Labour opened floodgates on immigration and did so without planning for additional NHS capacity, school places, housing etc.

It's the pressure on these services that was the main cause of the general discontent about immigration. And I'm sure you know that.

The fact still remains that there are far too many people relative to the infrastructure.

We could have done an awful lot to satisfy the wishes of many Brexiters, without going for Brexit. e.g controlling non-EU immigration...

Er, you don't get it. It wasn't controlling non-EU immigration that people were after when they voted in the referendum. It was total immigration. And as long as EU immigration is completely out of our control then total immigration is out of our control.

 

[Mr D]

Judging by the numbers over the past couple of decades the non EU immigration was not low figures. It may have been controlled to a degree just not to low numbers.
And of course other countries could accept non EU people who then could move around in the EU.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Anyway, the problem is not the numbers!

It's not immigration that people are against, it's the mismatch between numbers in the UK ... and infrastructure.

Labour opened floodgates on immigration and did so without planning for additional NHS capacity, school places, housing etc.

It's the pressure on these services that was the main cause of the general discontent about immigration. And I'm sure you know that.

You are right, but I think you know that this isn't what a lot of people see.

The problem is indeed numbers vs infrastructure, but many people just see the numbers.

In fact, such an angle would be a political disaster. Just imagine it. "We aren't going to reduce immigration. Instead, we'll invest a lot more taxpayers money in infrastructure to support the immigrant population."

For the vast majority of people, the only solution they would be happy with is a reduction in numbers.

Also, there are a considerable amount of people who simply don't like the idea of immigration. Take Lord Ashcroft's poll: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/, which showed that 81% of leave voters think multiculturalism is a force for ill (compared to 19% of remain voters).

 

[Mr D]

The media talks up the negative.
Gang of Asian men forcing teenage girls to have sex. Reality does not matter, the media have a field day with the foreigners.
Even when the foreigners are British. Not foreign.

As an example.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Does multiculturalism ever exist, does it mean integration of all races and cultures. the furthest we see towards that aim is local segments of towns and cities filled by a majority of one type of similar people, just like when the British went abroad to the colonies they made copies of British towns and villages and never integrated, or the USA where everyone seems to be a Irish American or Italian American and so on, nobody is a American on its own

multiculturalism is a worthy aim but I doubt ever achievable in practice to large populations

 

[Clinton]

For the vast majority of people, the only solution they would be happy with is a reduction in numbers.

That's because they are smarter than you think. They are not the ignorant, racist, xenophobic thugs they are often assumed to be.

They are smarter than you think ...and smarter than the Left would like them to be. They may not know about inelasticity of supply but they darn well know that it takes a long time for infrastructure to catch up with current numbers. And by that time we could have an additional few million EU immigrants. Which means we are back to square one!

They know, for example, that it is disparity in wealth and living conditions that's a great spur to people coming here. Improve conditions here in the UK by investing in infrastructure ...and you'll get even more immigrants.

The problem with the infrastructure vs number of people mismatch is the open door between here and the EU. The public know it, the Left try to cover it up as the main problem and our shady politicians did a lot of talking about immigration targets and controlling immigration when all along they knew that they had absolutely no way to control immigration as long as we are in the EU.

Immigration, on it's own, is a good thing, AFAIAC (I'm an immigrant so I have a bias here ). But the public see it in relation to infrastructure, and they have a right to do so.

People are not as stupid as you think. If Remain had properly addressed the above instead of trying to cover it up, we would have had a lot more votes!

 

[Cobby]

Anyway, the problem is not the numbers!

It's not immigration that people are against, it's the mismatch between numbers in the UK ... and infrastructure.

Labour opened floodgates on immigration and did so without planning for additional NHS capacity,

There's a slightly different conversation to be had re: schools and housing but you know you're being dishonest about the NHS usage.
Migrants tend to be younger and healthier so use the NHS at a lower rate than an average member of the UK population, while contributing more to the economy; 2014 saw an estimated £160million/year cost for migrants. Even "Migration Watch", the right-wing xenophobic campaign group put EEA users higher than natives on the contribution/usage scale.

We've already been over this, but then Leave made a lot of ground by constantly reinforcing and repeating known falsehoods.

Er, you don't get it. It wasn't controlling non-EU immigration that people were after when they voted in the referendum. It was total immigration. And as long as EU immigration is completely out of our control then total immigration is out of our control.

EU immigration isn't completely out of our control, our government just chooses to to use any controls.

 

[Cobby]

Does multiculturalism ever exist, does it mean integration of all races and cultures. the furthest we see towards that aim is local segments of towns and cities filled by a majority of one type of similar people, just like when the British went abroad to the colonies they made copies of British towns and villages and never integrated, or the USA where everyone seems to be a Irish American or Italian American and so on, nobody is a American on its own

multiculturalism is a worthy aim but I doubt ever achievable in practice to large populations

America has a strong history of cultural oppression which led to a great deal of internalised privilege by the European caucasians that took over the country in the first place, and the outcome (or one of them anyway) was a relatively homogeneous group looking for ways to differentiate themselves based on their heritage; ironic, no?

In practical terms multiculturalism (left wing, if you like) is on the same scale as tribalism/nationalism (right-wing), it's about how and where you want to draw your boundaries in terms of Them vs. Us: the right-wing, for whatever reason, likes drawing those lines very close to themselves.

Saying "it isn't achievable" is to fundamentally misunderstand it and represent it as nothing more than "letting foreigners live near me".

 

[Cobby]

They know, for example, that it is disparity in wealth and living conditions that's a great spur to people coming here. Improve conditions here in the UK by investing in infrastructure ...and you'll get even more immigrants.

That's a non-sequitur, but you make a valid observation about disparity (but lol if you think most Leave or Remain voters understand that).

With the home economies of many of our immigrants improving, the disparity and inequality lessens and their desire to migrate here begins to recede (we've already seen some evidence of this prior to the referendum). The UK remaining within the EU helps strengthen that progress, reduce the inequality and naturally reduce migration numbers and what's great is that the market takes the lead. The biggest benefit of this is that we don't have to drive our own economy into a wall or waste billions in taxpayer money to hastily assemble a poor copy of infrastructure we already have.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The problem with the infrastructure vs number of people mismatch is the open door between here and the EU. The public know it, the Left try to cover it up as the main problem and our shady politicians did a lot of talking about immigration targets and controlling immigration when all along they knew that they had absolutely no way to control immigration as long as we are in the EU.

Immigration, on it's own, is a good thing, AFAIAC (I'm an immigrant so I have a bias here ). But the public see it in relation to infrastructure, and they have a right to do so.

People are not as stupid as you think. If Remain had properly addressed the above instead of trying to cover it up, we would have had a lot more votes!

Who said anyone is stupid? In that poll, 81% of leave voters thought that multiculturalism is a force for ill. That's not stupid. It's just an opinion, albeit one I happen to disagree with.

Anyway, the open door policy has much less of an impact than you think. The current statistics (for what they're worth) show that non-EU net migration is higher than EU migration. We could close the door completely on EU immigration and the annual net migration rate would still be tens of thousands above the UK's supposed target.

Yes, the rest of the world is obviously a lot bigger, but Europe is a heck of a lot closer and more aligned with our culture compared to many other nations. Migration flows tend to be concentrated around the vicinity of the emigrating country (for example, the 800,000 Canadians in the US) partly due to convenience.

I still maintain that total net migration to the UK, when new FTAs are signed and delivered, will reduce by no more than 20%-25% after Brexit. Perhaps even less, considering that such a figure would require EU migration to be cut in half.

And if we're desperate enough for free trade deals (which almost always include a degree of visa relaxation to facilitate movement of workers), we could find that total net migration barely changes at all.

Take the EU-India FTA. One of the sticking points has been visa liberalisation for Indian workers, with the UK one of the staunchest opponents. Once we've left, the EU will probably find it easier to strike a deal. But we have absolutely no chance of having our own UK-India FTA without similar terms.

We will not procure our own FTAs without visa incentives. Period. Movement of workers is a cornerstone of economic function. Liberalisation of goods, services and capital, but a restriction on people, is utterly nonsensical from an economic standpoint. It's also offensive to the other party. If we truly intend to open trade with the rest of the world, and reduce our reliance on the EU, annual non-EU net migration is going to go up.

We will therefore be left with a potentially poorer economic situation, but a very similar immigration-related burden on our infrastructure and less money than we had before to remedy the problem.

Is that really a smart solution?

 

[The Byre]

That's because they are smarter than you think. They are not the ignorant, racist, xenophobic thugs they are often assumed to be.

They are smarter than you think ...!

People are not as stupid as you think!

 

[KM-Tiger]

but Europe is a heck of a lot closer and more aligned with our culture compared to many other nations.

I don't agree.

We have much more in common with countries of the Commonwealth, wherever they may be in the world. With them we share both language and much of our legal system.

 

[Clinton]

... Europe is a heck of a lot closer and more aligned with our culture compared to many other nations.

More so than the US? And Australia?

Even India is more "aligned" with UK culture than France is!

Besides, if we are to have immigration because, say, we don't have enough doctors, why not choose from the best wherever in the world they happen to be? Why give preference to doctors who happen to live in nearby countries and why make concessions to attract them at the expense of better doctors from elsewhere?

It makes no sense.

The only advantage in such a policy is, arguably, that we are helping poorer EU countries to develop to the point where their standard of living is the same as ours. That's a noble goal, but politicians should be honest and pitch that as the goal rather than bullsh*tting us as they have been doing.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I don't agree.

We have much more in common with countries of the Commonwealth, wherever they may be in the world. With them we share both language and much of our legal system.

I said that Europe is a lot closer and more aligned compared to many other nations. Not all of them.

We certainly share more values with the likes of Australia and the US compared to many European nations. Even the Commonwealth, too.

But very few countries have both, i.e. shared values and cultures combined with convenient proximity. Travelling between the UK and mainland Europe can take 35 minutes. Travelling between the UK and Australia takes 22+ hours and costs 10 times more.

Such factors play on the minds of many people considering a permanent move where they'll leave their friends and family behind.

Some say we should open the doors to such nations to make things "fairer". Fine. I agree. But with EU immigration unlikely to decline by a great deal, we'll see far greater net migration than we ever have before.

Some might also say it's about the principle of control. But something tells me that most people wouldn't be happy at all if net migration surged to a higher rate regardless of the control the Government has.

Would you? If net migration surges to 350,000 over the next five years, with more people from other parts of the world, would you be satisfied just because the Government has chose that to happen?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The only advantage in such a policy is, arguably, that we are helping poorer EU countries to develop to the point where their standard of living is the same as ours. That's a noble goal, but politicians should be honest and pitch that as the goal rather than bullsh*tting us as they have been doing.

It's been tried. The backlash comes from people who are infuriated that we have to sacrifice anything to help the EU grow as a whole (even if it would benefit us in the long-run).

Solving the burden of EU immigration in the UK (not just the symptom) requires:

1). Better wealth equality in the EU
2). Better wealth equality in the UK itself

There are many parts of the UK that have barely any immigrants at all with zero pressure on infrastructure. There are also regions where immigrants are highly concentrated and do create a burden.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/

London has 36.8% of the UK's foreign-born population, and the South East has 12.8%. Wales has 2.2%, and the North East has 1.6%.

But it's not just EU nationals. Brits do it as well. The UK has a big problem of internal migration where people move to wealthier cities in search of better job prospects. Where you have wealth you have a much greater population density.

Solve both of those and the UK's immigration woes will vanish.

 

[The Byre]

I read stuff like the following with a certain amount of disquiet -

We have much more in common with countries of the Commonwealth, wherever they may be in the world. With them we share both language and much of our legal system.

We certainly share more values with the likes of Australia and the US compared to many European nations. Even the Commonwealth, too.

More so than the US? And Australia?
Even India is more "aligned" with UK culture than France is!

I personally certainly feel culturally closer to France and Germany, than to the US, Australia or India.

But on a wider and more important point, we are where we are!

I realise that many older people find the whole idea of foreigners somewhat distasteful and that they wish the UK was further out in the Atlantic. But we are where we are.

We cannot re-position the UK somewhere off the American coast or in the Indian Ocean or between New Zealand and Australia. Until not too long ago, The British Isles were attached to the rest of Europe and the English Channel is what is left of the extension of the valley of the River Rhine.

When the Land of Dogger flooded, some people went East and some went West, but even today, we are just a few short miles from our parent continent, Europe. There is nothing we can do about being close to Europe. It's there, whether we like it or not!

Not only that, but politically and economically, it's there. You can all pout, stamp your feet and pretend that we are going to sail the SS Great Britain off into some glorious sunset, but our core values, our culture and darest I say it, our language, as well as our economy is bound up with the rest of Europe.

We speak a Saxon language. Our words for house, mouse, brother, sister, mother, father are Saxon words that are also in German, Danish, Swedish, Dutch. The whole way we speak and think, is 100% European. The very structure of our language, our society, our laws, our belief systems and our philosophies are 100% European.

There are two legal principles that underpin our legal system - the old Saxon principles of what went before and the Roman principle of written statute. We even organise our society along the old Saxon principle of elected elders. We speak a language that has sentences with a subject, verb and object and with direct and indirect articles and compound tenses. You can't get more European than that!

The very titles Anglo-Saxon and Britain should tell you where we belong and who we are!

We are where we are - and more importantly, we are who we are!

 

[KM-Tiger]

The very structure of our language, our society, our laws, our belief systems and our philosophies are 100% European.

You are correct is some respects, but not about law. The Napoleonic Code (France and a lot of Europe) is quite different to Common Law in this country. It's that that makes the EAW, which is a good idea in principle, problematic.

As regards geography, of course we are part of Europe, and as you say in many respects culturally. But it does not follow that we should necessarily be in a political union whose aim is a super state within which we become a mere region.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

As regards geography, of course we are part of Europe, and as you say in many respects culturally. But it does not follow that we should necessarily be in a political union whose aim is a super state within which we become a mere region.

Is that really the aim?

Many people talk as if the EU is led by some shadowy figures trying to control the members within.

In reality, we are the EU.

The European Council consists of the head of state of each member.

The European Parliament consists of MEPs from the member nations elected by the people of those nations.

The European Commission has one commissioner from each member nation, and the president is elected by the European Parliament.

Unless you're claiming that each member nation - from France to Germany, the UK to Poland - actually wants to sacrifice all sovereignty and become nothing more than a state with limited powers, then who exactly is the driving force behind all this?

 

[The Byre]

You are correct is some respects, but not about law.

We have a hybrid legal system which is moving (rapidly) towards Roman statute law (you call it the Napoleonic Code). We used to have a common law system, but sadly, people keep passing bloody statutes and I wish they wouldn't!

In my perfect world (after we have erected a giant statue to Nicki Minaj on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square) I would abolish ALL laws and revert to a pure common law system of that which went before, bearing in mind the principles of common sense and reasonable expectation.

 

[Clinton]

Is that really the aim?

Many people talk as if the EU is led by some shadowy figures trying to control the members within.

In reality, we are the EU.

The European Council consists of the head of state of each member.

The European Parliament consists of MEPs from the member nations elected by the people of those nations.

The European Commission has one commissioner from each member nation, and the president is elected by the European Parliament.

Unless you're claiming that each member nation - from France to Germany, the UK to Poland - actually wants to sacrifice all sovereignty and become nothing more than a state with limited powers, then who exactly is the driving force behind all this?

You can't be serious!

Of course it is the aim to become a superstate. One or two lone voices, like the British, aren't going to sway the rest. The creation of a single currency was only the start. As we all know, that isn't working too great and the common currency has worked to Germany's huge advantage against the likes of Greece and Spain.

The only way to sort the Euro mess out is increased political integration, a common foreign policy, a common military, common taxation and a lot of other common stuff that goes far beyond what we signed up for - free trade!

Germany and France put together a plan over the summer.

The plan would reportedly create a unified army, criminal law system, and central bank and taxation program. The overall goal of the proposed plan is to create political unity throughout all of Europe, especially as the UK prepares to enact Brexit.

While some countries, like Poland, are adamantly against, politicians of most of the other countries are in favour. But they realise they need to get their populations on-side first. So they'll devote state resources, as politicians do, to attempt to brainwash the public in those countries.

The superstate will happen, one way or another.

 

[Clinton]

The first sign of cracks

France and other EU nations have signalled they are willing to begin Brexit trade talks as early as October in a move that opens the door to a climbdown by the EU, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

Senior French diplomats have made clear they want to see the deadlocked Brexit talks make progress in the first sign of splits emerging in the EU.

My prediction: The EU will climbdown on the issue of settling the "divorce bill" before starting trade talks.

That'll be the first of many EU climbdowns.

They'll dress it up, of course. They'll find clever ways to save face. Can't wait to see how they explain any backtracking and erasing of red lines.

 

[Mr D]

Clinton, if the EU politicians read the Daily Telegraph then perhaps they will change their minds.
Disadvantage of the media is that an idea that is being discussed or tabled for discussion gets dropped because the media are for or against it.
Saying that I daresay the media have come up with stuff at times the politicians hadn't considered...

 

[Clinton]

The idea will probably get dropped, that's not the point.

The point is that we're seeing signs of cracks. All that talk of 27 countries united against us and how we'll get a horrible deal - from the same scaremongers who predicted a plague of locusts last year - will turn out to have been unnecessary worry.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

You can't be serious!

Of course it is the aim to become a superstate. One or two lone voices, like the British, aren't going to sway the rest. The creation of a single currency was only the start. As we all know, that isn't working too great and the common currency has worked to Germany's huge advantage against the likes of Greece and Spain.

I would argue that the "one or two lone voices" are actually those who want superstate-style integration. They just happen to be the loudest voices, that's all.

Look at the link you posted. It's a joint proposal from the foreign ministers of France and Germany. One of them, Jean-Marc Ayrault, isn't even there any more now that Macron is in power.

Therein lies my point. Some in the EU want it, but not everyone. Far from everyone. It's not the EU that wants a superstate. Just some within. That's obviously to be expected considering the mix of political views across 27 different countries.

Some deeper integration would probably be good for the EU and its members. Take security, for example. But the leaders of many EU nations, and the citizens of those nations, would not accept their parliaments becoming nothing more than ceremonial fanfares.

It's important to not look at "deeper integration" as black and white. I have no doubt that the leaders of many countries do want deeper integration in certain areas. But they certainly don't all want to sacrifice their powers and hand everything over to EU control.

It isn't going to happen. Some can make all the noises they want, but that's all they will ever do.

 

[The Byre]

When the Land of Dogger flooded, some people went East and some went West, but even today, we are just a few short miles from our parent continent, Europe. There is nothing we can do about being close to Europe. It's there, whether we like it or not!

Not only that, but politically and economically, it's there. You can all pout, stamp your feet and pretend that we are going to sail the SS Great Britain off into some glorious sunset, but our core values, our culture and darest I say it, our language, as well as our economy is bound up with the rest of Europe.

I notice that nobody wants to answer that fundamental point. The titles Anglo-Saxon and Britain should tell you where we are and more importantly, we are who we are!

As for this nonsense -

My prediction: The EU will climbdown on the issue of settling the "divorce bill" before starting trade talks.

That'll be the first of many EU climbdowns.

They'll dress it up, of course. They'll find clever ways to save face. Can't wait to see how they explain any backtracking and erasing of red lines.

That presupposes that they rest-27 think that it is important enough - and trust me, they do not!

 

[Gecko001]

I .

We certainly share more values with the likes of Australia and the US compared to many European nations. Even the Commonwealth, too.
?

I doubt that you speak for the majority in the UK. You certainly do not speak for me.

I have been to the USA just once. When I walked out of JFK airport, I remember the feeling I got. Everything felt really foreign. I was surprised at this reaction as they spoke the same language and I had watched US TV and movies since I was a kid. I cannot remember having the same feeling when travelling to the Continent. I spent 3 weeks in the USA and this feeling of foreigness actually grew over that time. Great country and the people are very polite, but it is definitely culturally a lot different to Europe and UK

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I doubt that you speak for the majority in the UK. You certainly do not speak for me.

I have been to the USA just once. When I walked out of JFK airport, I remember the feeling I got. Everything felt really foreign. I was surprised at this reaction as they spoke the same language and I had watched US TV and movies since I was a kid. I cannot remember having the same feeling when travelling to the Continent. I spent 3 weeks in the USA and this feeling of foreigness actually grew over that time. Great country and the people are very polite, but it is definitely culturally a lot different to Europe and UK

I said "many" European nations. Not all of them.

If you happen to feel more culturally aligned with the likes of Bulgaria, Croatia or Austria, compared to Australia or the United States, then fair enough.

Perhaps it was expectation vs reality? I think it's easy to imagine the US as a "home from home" due to the perceived similarities, but then get a bit of a surprise at how different many aspects of life are over there.

Although it depends where you visit. New England, for example, has a lot more cultural similarities than other parts of the US. You mentioned JFK airport, and I would agree that New York, at least, is a bit of a culture shock. Unless someone grows up in the hustle and bustle of London, it can be a bit overwhelming.

Anyway, I was referring more to values, above all else. The UK has a deeply intertwined history with the US and Australia. Many aspects of the US political system, for example, are based on UK law.

A look back through history also shows a lot of British influences in many other areas, although sometimes you have to dig deep as the US has moulded them in their own quirky ways.

 

[Clinton]

That presupposes that they rest-27 think that it is important enough - and trust me, they do not!

Let's wait and see, shall we?

They'll cave. And that's despite us not having the "negotiating talent" everyone was telling us would be a major drawback in these negotiations.

You are right in one respect. As you've said time and time again, and nobody is disputing - the man on the street in Spain and Greece and Germany doesn't care. He's more worried about which celebrity is sh*gging which other celebrity.

But that man on the street isn't in the negotiating room. And he's not the one getting political pressure from elected representatives all over the place who are themselves getting major grief from big businesses (you know, the employers and wealth creators).

In the meanwhile, our national association of clowns, previously known as the Labour Party, havechanged their minds yet again on what they want to see out of Brexit. At least some of them have. Others are protesting strongly (about everything, especially their leader). A few are still insisting we stop talking and simply cancel Brexit. And one of their completely crazy woman MPs is walking around with garlic, holy water and a wooden stake in case she ever comes across a government MP / minister. Fat chance of this lot properly challenging Theresa May on whatever deal she tries to push through Parliament.

 

[Gecko001]

I said "many" European nations. Not all of them.

If you happen to feel more culturally aligned with the likes of Bulgaria, Croatia or Austria, compared to Australia or the United States, then fair enough.

Well actually that is what I was saying. They have different languages and some of them are poorer than the UK, but have you been in the Virginian Mountains of America, where families are feuding and the only employment is the glue factory where you can smell the bones being boiled down to make the glue for miles around? I have been there and experienced it. Or the deep south where although the law says one thing on race relations, the people act as if the law does not exist?

The poverty in America is everywhere except on Tv and the movies. You might not find it in the touristy places of Manhattan or Maine but it is in the US in abundance.

 

[Mr D]

Yes, saw that Labour clarification of what they want at this point in time. Not the same as what they wanted when they voted through the Brexit decision.
And likely not the same as they will have by March 2019.

 

[Mr D]

Well actually that is what I was saying. They have different languages and some of them are poorer than the UK, but have you been in the Virginian Mountains of America, where families are feuding and the only employment is the glue factory where you can smell the bones being boiled down to make the glue for miles around? I have been there and experienced it. Or the deep south where although the law says one thing on race relations, the people act as if the law does not exist?

The poverty in America is everywhere except on Tv and the movies. You might not find it in the touristy places of Manhattan or Maine but it is in the US in abundance.

How much poverty can you have in a country where vast majority are in the top few percent worldwide? And the country where the poorest man on the planet lives is ... apparently the US.
If you ever get the chance to look at the figures the media come up with for 'poverty' then check the sums.
Often strange ideas about poverty.
Such as a couple, both working, who spend on rent, bills and childcare a whole 25% of their income. Extreme example but the media do use extremes.
Have met people in Britain who do not consider themselves in poverty who spend 95% plus of income on the same things.

Have got friends in the US who struggle to pay bills. Child with leukemia, insurance stopped paying after the first million dollars claimed, still paying to keep their child alive. Pretty much meeting the idea of 'poverty' here but in reality not even in the top 1% of poverty worldwide.

 

[Clinton]

And likely not the same as they will have by March 2019.

Likely not the same they'll have next Monday.

But you've got to feel sorry for them. The canvassed for Remain and are now struggling to find a position that will lose them the least votes (while still giving the impression they respect the outcome of the Referendum).

 

[The Byre]

You are right in one respect. As you've said time and time again, and nobody is disputing - the man on the street in Spain and Greece and Germany doesn't care. He's more worried about which celebrity is sh*gging which other celebrity.

But that man on the street isn't in the negotiating room. And he's not the one getting political pressure from elected representatives all over the place who are themselves getting major grief from big businesses (you know, the employers and wealth creators).

I'm not talking about that mythical 'Man in the Street', but the political glitterati and business and media cognoscenti. They don't care!

French and German news reports, newspapers and websites just are not reporting on Brexit, except now and then and only in the quality outlets. Bild and Le Parisien do not show the slightest interest in whether the UK gets a good, bad, hard, soft, medium-rare or lumpy Brexit and the evening news on RTL, Sat1 and Pro7 concentrate on national stories about Mutti Merkel and Emanuel Macron and what they are up to. As for getting the readers of Marie Claire or Neue Revue to worry about Brexit - well, good luck with that one! You might as well ask The Beno to cover the coming German election!

The car industry has already got its ducks in a row and is ready for a hard Brexit. Car manufacture is so very capital intensive and marginal costs so low, that they can 'swallow' tariffs and other difficulties by altering models and reducing options and also charging a Brexit premium (they have been looking for a reason to put up prices for a couple of years now, so a hard Brexit could be very welcome!)

Food is already charging a Brexit premium, as the pound falls steadily. Again, the supermarkets have used these movements to increase their very slim mark-ups.

You were right to say that there was no sudden disaster or economic collapse after the vote and you are right in your assumption that there will no no such collapse when Brexit finally happens.

But the steady decline in UK living standards will continue.

 

[Clinton]

I'm not talking about that mythical 'Man in the Street', but the political glitterati and business and media cognoscenti. They don't care!

That's where I believe you're drastically wrong. They care very, very deeply. These are people who export to the British market and wish to continue doing so. These are people who realise the budgetary implications of a British withdrawal, people who'll have to pick up the tab after the Brits leave, people who realise that the best mitigation against the shortfall is giving the Brits a deal that keeps them financially close.

These people also realise the damage that could done to all their economies (and personal / business wealth) if Britain goes "rogue" i.e. if Britain is forced into a no-deal situation that threatens the UK economy to the extent that the UK government goes full monty with cutting regulations and lowering tax.

These people also know how much they rely on London to raise finance for their businesses - London is after all the investment bank of Europe. They also know how much they rely on London for clearing, for insurance, for liquidity, for swaps, for bonds, for derivatives. A no deal situation could damage EU-wide liquidity, access to finance, insurance cover, forex hedging. In fact, it'll even affect capital ratios and drive several EU banks to the wall.

And bear in mind that the ECB doesn't have any tools left in their box now that they've taken QE to the hilt and gone so low on interest rates that they are in Alice-in-Wonderland negative rates territory. They've painted themselves in a corner and can't even raise rates. EURUSD last week reached a high not seen since the end of 2014; if Draghi simply gives the slightest hint that he's considering raising rates that'll send the EURUSD soaring further and cause a deep, continent-wide recession.

Even more than before, they desperately need to keep us onside. As the negotiations continue this will become more apparent.