Mark of Carnage
Reserve team substitute
Responsibility, Resilience, Respect
Posts: 2,558
|
Post by Mark of Carnage on May 25, 2019 8:15:30 GMT
Cambcam - you may think me naive for asking this, but how much of people’s pre-referendum unhappiness do you think was a direct or indirect consequence of the UK being a member of the EU? Given a decade of austerity, wages stagnating, rising job insecurity (due to zero-hours contracts), etc., there was (and still is) a lot to be unhappy about. But what proportion of that do you think was the result of EU membership? I’m not seeking to defend the EU and clearly it was a proportion, but my question is “how much?”. My personal theory (which may, again, be naive) is that people were unhappy about a lot of things, but that the majority of these were not related to EU membership. However, if you can’t envisage Brexit making your life any worse, then you’ll probably vote for it on the basis that it represents a change from the status quo. Plus, in a vote done by proportional representation, an individual’s vote has more bearing than it would in a GE context. I completely accept that many people will have considered the issue in a lot of detail before casting their vote, but it is easy to imagine that several others would simply have asked themselves “how can things get any worse?”. If that were the case, then much blame lies with the Remain camp for not putting their case across more clearly and forcefully. Moose, that is a very, very good question. I’ve always said mass Eastern European migration came at just the wrong time. The ‘great British worker’ (whatever that is) had seen their terms and conditions deteriorate over many years. The seeds of that had been set decades earlier. That migration allowed companies to reduce costs and remain competitive in a global market place. Or did it? That migration also allowed companies to exploit the skewed supply and demand and drive people into the ground and have a rapid acceleration of a trend that was already happening. It was inevitable ‘the great British worker’ would feel they were going backwards. Add to the fact the landscape was changing rapidly with the massive population increases (yes, the schools, doctors waiting rooms etc) housing in desperately short supply and getting further out of reach by the day. Many migrants copped the backlash for this and none of it is their fault. But, things are worse, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. Never mind the decade you speak about, what about 15, 20, 30 years before that? The roots of all this go back way beyond ten years. Reducing costs and introducing flexible working to remain competitive in a global market (also known as exploiting a fortunate situation to maximise profit) has brought us here. Something has gone very, very wrong. People working like slaves with crap terms and conditions is something no one envisaged. If someone had told me as a young man that one day we’d have people on zero hours contracts with no rights whatsoever you’d have looked at them as though they’d just arrived from Mars. Telling people the EU and open borders will make that better just doesn’t wash I’m afraid. Taxing Starbucks or bankers bonuses to pay for this was nonsense and pissing in the wind. Much of that is probably more to do with the manifestation of capitalism as much as anything else (cue Brother Carnage). Yes the EU is doing some good work in employment law, workers rights etc, but is not able to address the slide or provide answers. Expansion, more open borders, a further increase in population and a cycle of even more cheap labour to fuel that even greater population is a one way ticket to disaster. It’s no wonder on that basis at least people want change and that has to start with control. As previously mentioned, the EU has only one direction of travel. From my standpoint at least, for all it’s advantages it is ultimately unable to stop the problems it is creating and that will ultimately be its downfall. I really don’t think generally Brexiteers voted Leave with any certainty whatsoever things would be better. They voted Leave because they were unhappy with the EU and that with a Brexit things might just be better. It’s a gamble many were, and still are, willing to take. Anyway, just one persons opinion but might as well tell it as I see it. Cheers, Cam. I think it's the crisis in democracy that is manifesting as populism. Increasing numbers simply don't feel that our political system does anything for them anymore so given the voice in a referendum they used it. For centuries sovereignty in the UK has been through parliament and with the support of the executive the people are challenging that sovereignty throwing us into a political quagmire. Maybe this is because the established political parties are not listening anymore to their bedrock supporters. The impression I get from the Labour heartlands of the North is that working class Labour voters feel detached from a party more concerned with yuppy mummys of islington than men who frequent the working mens clubs of Salford. Though, whether it is the Conservative, Labour or brexit party, brexit is just the presenting issue and the real issue is about decent wages, affordable housing and overall improvements to standard of living. As an extremely rich nation that shouldn't be too big an ask for our political system whatever your politics should it?
|
|
cambcam
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,590
|
Post by cambcam on May 25, 2019 13:05:38 GMT
“ the real issue is about decent wages, affordable housing and overall improvements to standard of living. As an extremely rich nation that shouldn't be too big an ask for our political system whatever your politics should it? “
Well Brother Carnage, you’ve cut right through to it there.
I’ll give my answer this way:
Within the EU - definitely too big an ask. You are creating more problems than you are solving and the evidence so far suggests your goals are not achievable. I don’t believe any government, Labour, Conservative or any combination of well-intentioned MP’s can ever achieve those goals within the framework of the EU.
Outside of the EU - Possibly. To make that work we would need tremendous leadership. As is evidenced there is absolutely no sign of that, anywhere.
But the important difference between those two scenarios is there is at least hope with one. It kind of brings us to the elephant in the room - Remainers have done very well in damaging the credibility of Leave/WTO etc etc, but have no answers to the downward spiral of the affects of the EU. You cannot get Leavers onside by telling them their increasingly shitty situation is to be cherished and fought for, because if they dare to try and escape it in all likelihood they’ll find themselves in an even shittier one.
It’s really up to Remainers and the EU to turn that around, because stopping Brexit will only make that worse.
|
|
martin018
Youth team substitute
Posts: 589
Favourite CUFC player: Michael Heathcote
Favourite CUFC match: U's 4 - 0 against Sheff. Wed FA Cup 1990
|
Post by martin018 on May 25, 2019 13:14:35 GMT
i voted. Hopefully a Brexit party landslide. We are still a democracy and these remainers should realise that brexit must happen otherwise democracy is dead. You can't keep going until you get the result you want. Our MP's need to realise how selfish some of them have been. If this had been a South American country and the government/parliament had just ignored the will of the people there would of been uproar at how undemocratic it was.
|
|
|
Post by pedrosacapuntas on May 26, 2019 10:27:24 GMT
''If we don't get our way, democracy is dead'' is probably my favourite of all the Brexiteer non-sequiturs.
|
|
martin018
Youth team substitute
Posts: 589
Favourite CUFC player: Michael Heathcote
Favourite CUFC match: U's 4 - 0 against Sheff. Wed FA Cup 1990
|
Post by martin018 on May 26, 2019 15:21:08 GMT
I never said i had to get my way. It was a democratic vote which needs to be respected. If it is not trust in politicians will be gone.
|
|
moose
Youth team substitute
Posts: 558
|
Post by moose on May 27, 2019 20:21:45 GMT
We know that when people are assured that we can have a trade deal with the EU, without being in the EU, a majority will vote for it. There is no democratic mandate for a no-deal exit, so if that is the only option left (other than remain) then it should be put to the people in those terms.
I am surprised that people like Boris and Gove have not come in for more stick, given that they assured us how straightforward it would be, whilst the truth has proved anything but. If anyone really thinks things would’ve been easier if Boris et al were in charge, they are living in fantasy land.
|
|
cambcam
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,590
|
Post by cambcam on May 28, 2019 8:28:25 GMT
Moose, you asked some questions to a Brexiteer which I have tried to answer honestly.
Remainers have made the terrible mistake of telling people why they voted Leave. That they were thick or racist. Or both. And that Remainers can save Leavers from their own stupidity by stopping this happening. That’s it’s for your own benefit, you are just too thick to realise and will thank us one day.
I’d like to ask a sincere question or two to a Remainer - questions which Remain needed to answer during the referendum campaign, and I honestly believe, fair and reasonable answers to would’ve seen a landslide Remain victory.
I’ve acknowledged the deterioration of ‘real terms’ pay/job security/housing/cost of living etc etc stretches back decades, and outlined why I believe the EU whilst not responsible, has certainly made that worse and that is is unable to reverse that trend. On that basis, a Brexit gives hope (however risky, however flimsy that might be, it does give some), whereas Remaining doesn’t.
I’ve explained why I see expansion, more open borders, a further increase in population and a cycle of even more cheap labour to fuel that even greater population as unsustainable and a oneway ticket to disaster. At the risk of telling Remainers what they are thinking, I’m assuming a U.K. that eventually has such a huge population, with such a creaking infrastructure, with such a high cost of living and such shitty wages, little to no job security and crap terms and conditions, unaffordable housing etc. etc. etc. to the extent that it has no better prospects than any other other European basket case, to the point it’s no longer worth coming and isn’t really a U.K. anyway, and rejoice in the success and pleasure of knowing we are all now finally one level of shittiness across the whole of the European Union - hallelujah - is this the EU vision worth fighting for and the one that represents “hope”?
So I’d like you to explain your vision of remaining? How do you see the EU in 10, or 20 years? Is there a population number that could make you think this was unsustainable or is that simply irrelevant? Do you think the UK government / EU would always be able to cope (feed/clothe/educate/house and care for) irrespective of numbers? And if so how?
I’m not interested in why you think leaving is wrong. I’m interested in the answers to those questions and why you think remaining is right.
|
|
moose
Youth team substitute
Posts: 558
|
Post by moose on May 28, 2019 10:16:14 GMT
Moose, you asked some questions to a Brexiteer which I have tried to answer honestly. Remainers have made the terrible mistake of telling people why they voted Leave. That they were thick or racist. Or both. And that Remainers can save Leavers from their own stupidity by stopping this happening. That’s it’s for your own benefit, you are just too thick to realise and will thank us one day. I’d like to ask a sincere question or two to a Remainer - questions which Remain needed to answer during the referendum campaign, and I honestly believe, fair and reasonable answers to would’ve seen a landslide Remain victory. I’ve acknowledged the deterioration of ‘real terms’ pay/job security/housing/cost of living etc etc stretches back decades, and outlined why I believe the EU whilst not responsible, has certainly made that worse and that is is unable to reverse that trend. On that basis, a Brexit gives hope (however risky, however flimsy that might be, it does give some), whereas Remaining doesn’t. I’ve explained why I see expansion, more open borders, a further increase in population and a cycle of even more cheap labour to fuel that even greater population as unsustainable and a oneway ticket to disaster. At the risk of telling Remainers what they are thinking, I’m assuming a U.K. that eventually has such a huge population, with such a creaking infrastructure, with such a high cost of living and such shitty wages, little to no job security and crap terms and conditions, unaffordable housing etc. etc. etc. to the extent that it has no better prospects than any other other European basket case, to the point it’s no longer worth coming and isn’t really a U.K. anyway, and rejoice in the success and pleasure of knowing we are all now finally one level of shittiness across the whole of the European Union - hallelujah - is this the EU vision worth fighting for and the one that represents “hope”? So I’d like you to explain your vision of remaining? How do you see the EU in 10, or 20 years? Is there a population number that could make you think this was unsustainable or is that simply irrelevant? Do you think the UK government / EU would always be able to cope (feed/clothe/educate/house and care for) irrespective of numbers? And if so how? I’m not interested in why you think leaving is wrong. I’m interested in the answers to those questions and why you think remaining is right. I assume you are referring to Remainers generally, since I have not commented on Leavers' reasons for voting Leave. Though, as indicated in my earlier response, I do take issue with anyone that would say that a second referendum is undemocratic (given that I have previously provided evidence of the pre-Brexit Leave speeches, which did not contemplate a no-deal Brexit). To put my view in its simplest terms, I think this nation has been mismanaged for decades (including in relation to its EU dealings) and that leaving, whilst ideologically attractive for some, will not change anything for the better in real terms. I agree with you when you say that Brexit gives hope for some - I think I was making a similar point when I said that if you don't think life can get much worse, you don't see any downside to voting for Brexit. But I can't see that we will be better off economically or socially as a result. People have no doubt heard these issues/figures before, but the loss of the financial services passport will have a significant impact on the UK financial services market, which contributed £119 bn to the UK economy in 2017 and accounted for 6.5% of the overall economy: researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06193. Not all of that money will be lost, since we do still trade with the RoW, but a significant portion will be. That loss to the Exchequer through taxes will mean a loss to public services, which (as we've discussed) have already been severely hit through austerity. It will also lead to rising unemployment and businesses relocating to the EU27 - a phenomenon that is already well under way. I use this industry as an example, as it is one I am fairly familiar with, but it is a cycle that is repeated elsewhere. For me, the best outcome would be staying in the EU but ensuring that our leaders do not make the same mistakes as those that went before them. For example, Blair's refusal to place restrictions on Romanian migrants, when almost every other EU country was doing the same, definitely exacerbated the issue. I also think the UK has had a 'cake and eat it' approach to the EU for a long time. For example, I don't believe that it has used its EU revenues to properly invest in infrastructure or housing. What I find most repugnant in this area is the type of housing that the Government permits to be built. In particular, luxury apartments that are advertised off plan in Hong Kong and Singapore add almost nothing to the national coffers. Similarly, there have been developments in Cambridge that initially promised a high proportion of social housing, but these figures are then significantly revised down over time. There are other areas, but this to me is the most visible example of weak Government. And I see this getting worse post-Brexit, the UK is already somewhat of a tax haven for RoW billionaires. We will have to appeal to them more to bridge the Brexit deficit, meaning that even more luxury accommodation is produced. To answer your specific question on population, there clearly is a population figure that is unsustainable, but I don't know what that is. Interestingly, the Office for National Statistics says that up until 2015, the largest source of immigration to the UK was from India: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/november2018. Presumably it will be again post-Brexit. We could be stricter on that now (the EU is not preventing us) but we choose not to be. That seems odd given that we could limit that much more quickly and easily than we could EU migration. Why is that not being focused on? People will probably say "yes, we'll address that too", but why is it not being done already if immigration is such an issue? For what it's worth, I also see zero-hours contracts, etc., as something that Government should and could eradicate, rather than something that is somehow a result of being in the EU. As regards the EU in 20 years time, I think there will be a push back from a number of EU countries to the concept of ever-closer union. I think finding a successful balance in the EU is more likely than the UK achieving prosperity outside. But I regard the key issues as being a result of a failure of UK leadership, not of our EU membership necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by pedrosacapuntas on May 28, 2019 11:01:47 GMT
If it is not trust in politicians will be gone. Boris Johnson is going to be PM within a month or so, Jeremy Corbyn is still hoping to grow a pair that match his prize-winning marrow, the ghost of Vince Cable is being summoned in a pentagram somewhere and Nigel Farage is still the most prominent politician in this country despite rarely actually backing up his profile and presence with democratic results. It's like pointing at an empty stable and considering whether shutting the door would be clever.
|
|
cambsno
Youth team star
Posts: 1,031
|
Post by cambsno on May 28, 2019 12:22:29 GMT
i voted. Hopefully a Brexit party landslide. We are still a democracy and these remainers should realise that brexit must happen otherwise democracy is dead. You can't keep going until you get the result you want. Our MP's need to realise how selfish some of them have been. If this had been a South American country and the government/parliament had just ignored the will of the people there would of been uproar at how undemocratic it was. But no-one has identified what Brexit actually is! We can do the Norway model which allows freedom of movement but is still technicaly leaving the EU or no deal at the other end. What about if we keep a customs union? The likes of JRM and Boris will not like that. That was the issue with the question. We need a 2nd vote on a AV basis, options like remain, no deal, Norway etc... and the weakest one is removed each time.
|
|
martin018
Youth team substitute
Posts: 589
Favourite CUFC player: Michael Heathcote
Favourite CUFC match: U's 4 - 0 against Sheff. Wed FA Cup 1990
|
Post by martin018 on May 28, 2019 14:42:29 GMT
Surely you can’t have a second vote when the first has not been implemented.
|
|
moose
Youth team substitute
Posts: 558
|
Post by moose on May 28, 2019 15:42:50 GMT
Surely you can’t have a second vote when the first has not been implemented. The argument is that the vote to leave just set out what people didn't want, it didn't explain what people did want. The issue in Government at the moment is getting a consensus around what people do want. The 2016 referendum does not help in that regard. If I say I want to move house, that just says that I want to leave where I am now, it gives no indication of where I want to move to. You may say "yes, but at the very least you have said you want to leave". My answer to that is "that's true, but until you determine where you're going, you're physically unable to leave. Even determining that you don't want another house, and that you'll live on a bench in the park, would still require a determination to be made". When May's deal was still a viable option, there was concern that having it on any ballot paper (together with no-deal and remain) would split the leave vote. That could have been overcome through an alternative vote method, with people ranking their preferences. But May's deal now seems dead in any case. To the extent any alternative deal is negotiated, that could be included instead (but the chances of any such other deal seems very unlikely). So that just leaves a straight vote between no-deal and remain, unless anyone sees other alternatives?
|
|
cambcam
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,590
|
Post by cambcam on May 28, 2019 17:02:36 GMT
Moose, you asked some questions to a Brexiteer which I have tried to answer honestly. Remainers have made the terrible mistake of telling people why they voted Leave. That they were thick or racist. Or both. And that Remainers can save Leavers from their own stupidity by stopping this happening. That’s it’s for your own benefit, you are just too thick to realise and will thank us one day. I’d like to ask a sincere question or two to a Remainer - questions which Remain needed to answer during the referendum campaign, and I honestly believe, fair and reasonable answers to would’ve seen a landslide Remain victory. I’ve acknowledged the deterioration of ‘real terms’ pay/job security/housing/cost of living etc etc stretches back decades, and outlined why I believe the EU whilst not responsible, has certainly made that worse and that is is unable to reverse that trend. On that basis, a Brexit gives hope (however risky, however flimsy that might be, it does give some), whereas Remaining doesn’t. I’ve explained why I see expansion, more open borders, a further increase in population and a cycle of even more cheap labour to fuel that even greater population as unsustainable and a oneway ticket to disaster. At the risk of telling Remainers what they are thinking, I’m assuming a U.K. that eventually has such a huge population, with such a creaking infrastructure, with such a high cost of living and such shitty wages, little to no job security and crap terms and conditions, unaffordable housing etc. etc. etc. to the extent that it has no better prospects than any other other European basket case, to the point it’s no longer worth coming and isn’t really a U.K. anyway, and rejoice in the success and pleasure of knowing we are all now finally one level of shittiness across the whole of the European Union - hallelujah - is this the EU vision worth fighting for and the one that represents “hope”? So I’d like you to explain your vision of remaining? How do you see the EU in 10, or 20 years? Is there a population number that could make you think this was unsustainable or is that simply irrelevant? Do you think the UK government / EU would always be able to cope (feed/clothe/educate/house and care for) irrespective of numbers? And if so how? I’m not interested in why you think leaving is wrong. I’m interested in the answers to those questions and why you think remaining is right. I assume you are referring to Remainers generally, since I have not commented on Leavers' reasons for voting Leave. Though, as indicated in my earlier response, I do take issue with anyone that would say that a second referendum is undemocratic (given that I have previously provided evidence of the pre-Brexit Leave speeches, which did not contemplate a no-deal Brexit). To put my view in its simplest terms, I think this nation has been mismanaged for decades (including in relation to its EU dealings) and that leaving, whilst ideologically attractive for some, will not change anything for the better in real terms. I agree with you when you say that Brexit gives hope for some - I think I was making a similar point when I said that if you don't think life can get much worse, you don't see any downside to voting for Brexit. But I can't see that we will be better off economically or socially as a result. People have no doubt heard these issues/figures before, but the loss of the financial services passport will have a significant impact on the UK financial services market, which contributed £119 bn to the UK economy in 2017 and accounted for 6.5% of the overall economy: researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06193. Not all of that money will be lost, since we do still trade with the RoW, but a significant portion will be. That loss to the Exchequer through taxes will mean a loss to public services, which (as we've discussed) have already been severely hit through austerity. It will also lead to rising unemployment and businesses relocating to the EU27 - a phenomenon that is already well under way. I use this industry as an example, as it is one I am fairly familiar with, but it is a cycle that is repeated elsewhere. For me, the best outcome would be staying in the EU but ensuring that our leaders do not make the same mistakes as those that went before them. For example, Blair's refusal to place restrictions on Romanian migrants, when almost every other EU country was doing the same, definitely exacerbated the issue. I also think the UK has had a 'cake and eat it' approach to the EU for a long time. For example, I don't believe that it has used its EU revenues to properly invest in infrastructure or housing. What I find most repugnant in this area is the type of housing that the Government permits to be built. In particular, luxury apartments that are advertised off plan in Hong Kong and Singapore add almost nothing to the national coffers. Similarly, there have been developments in Cambridge that initially promised a high proportion of social housing, but these figures are then significantly revised down over time. There are other areas, but this to me is the most visible example of weak Government. And I see this getting worse post-Brexit, the UK is already somewhat of a tax haven for RoW billionaires. We will have to appeal to them more to bridge the Brexit deficit, meaning that even more luxury accommodation is produced. To answer your specific question on population, there clearly is a population figure that is unsustainable, but I don't know what that is. Interestingly, the Office for National Statistics says that up until 2015, the largest source of immigration to the UK was from India: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/november2018. Presumably it will be again post-Brexit. We could be stricter on that now (the EU is not preventing us) but we choose not to be. That seems odd given that we could limit that much more quickly and easily than we could EU migration. Why is that not being focused on? People will probably say "yes, we'll address that too", but why is it not being done already if immigration is such an issue? For what it's worth, I also see zero-hours contracts, etc., as something that Government should and could eradicate, rather than something that is somehow a result of being in the EU. As regards the EU in 20 years time, I think there will be a push back from a number of EU countries to the concept of ever-closer union. I think finding a successful balance in the EU is more likely than the UK achieving prosperity outside. But I regard the key issues as being a result of a failure of UK leadership, not of our EU membership necessarily. Thank you for taking the time. You make some very good points. There is clearly a big hole in Leavers thinking (and blaming) the EU for issues that could and should’ve been addressed, where the UK Government has been at fault with the EU a convenient smokescreen and scapegoat. That said, the tipping point and stumbling block for Remain, is that you can never have control over numbers with open borders. Cameron insisted we would but the numbers proved otherwise, the credibility of that argument being shot to pieces forever. I’d be inclined to agree with you about going forward with an EU that has learned from the past and suspect this is now very much about trust (or lack of). You made a good point about Blair’s decision and the damage of that was catastrophic and long lasting for Remain. Going forward it’s hard to see where we go from here. I’m not at all in agreement with a second ref, although the case for that is probably stronger than any other. The problem there is that it will always appear as Parliment’s (Remaining MP’s that is) tactic to stop a Brexit it never wanted in the first place, by dressing it up as a people’s vote to save face exonerate itself from blame and save their individual bacon in the process. Remain are in a tough spot here and there is trouble ahead regardless. They’ll now take the blame for any failings of any variation of Brexit, and the consequences of a Remain ‘success’ very worrying indeed. A shambolic Brexit or to drive the polarisation wedge deeper? Wouldn’t want to have to choose the lesser of those two evils.
|
|
moose
Youth team substitute
Posts: 558
|
Post by moose on May 28, 2019 17:34:44 GMT
The UK certainly needs to be more vigilant in enforcing the immigration protections that are given to Member States under EU law. For example, there are conditions and formalities to living in a Member State for more than three months. The UK should be much more visible and audible in ensuring that people understand that the UK will take proper steps to ensure that those conditions are abided by.
I think even the term "second referendum" is emotive, since it suggests a re-run of the first. Remainers would indeed be in a tough place if this was all that was being suggested. But I am yet to hear a decent argument against a "referendum on our future relationship with the EU", as this was not covered by the 2016 vote.
The arguments against any further vote strike me as specious. If everyone that voted for Brexit would still have voted for Brexit even in the event of a no-deal, then a further vote would prove that and there would be a legitimate basis for moving forward with no-deal. The issue only arises if anyone that voted Brexit would not have voted for Brexit in the event of a no-deal (and then only if that number is significant enough to alter the overall outcome). If it would impact the overall outcome then it does not seem fair to say that a no-deal Brexit represents the "will of the people".
|
|
Mark of Carnage
Reserve team substitute
Responsibility, Resilience, Respect
Posts: 2,558
|
Post by Mark of Carnage on May 29, 2019 0:55:13 GMT
That said, the tipping point and stumbling block for Remain, is that you can never have control over numbers with open borders. Surely the freedom of movement of workers in and out of the country to meet growth/labour supply and demand requirements is the kind of control over numbers that are a capitalist's wet dream. The UK government lost control over numbers recently when they made acquiring settled status for free so easy for EU nationals and their families. The right to reside controls under freedom of movement of workers in the Treaty of Rome are harsh in comparison to the open door settled status offer recently introduced as part of the pre-deal with the EU. The British government has no idea how many will acquire settled status and no idea of the long term costs involved. There is also the potential that this will become a much bigger scandal than Windrush in years to come when the scale of the problem of integrating millions of EU nationals and their families becomes apparent. These sort of written on the back of a fag packet controls inspired by panic (by the UK Establishment's fear of loss of profit through labour shortages) are storing up problems for the UK for future. Why require foreigners to settle when all they want to do is come here to work until it's time to move on.
|
|