Matthew i feel i must respond to your direct points to me even though i said i was done with all this discussion. Too much time has been wasted on it. however.
Fair question! I think that we've all realised that the country we lived in is not the place we thought it was - it's actually two countries with two very different visions - one looking backwards, one looking forwards. The part that is looking backwards is going to drag the part looking forwards into the swamp, and that makes us sad because it will cause us and people we care about pain.
I understand your feelings and respect them for what they represent to you personally.
I feel that the part of this country that is pro EU is the backwards looking part. It is a part that is happy for a group of unelected bureaucrats, with a preference for multinational business over the needs and requirements of the people they claim to govern. It is a part that screams intolerance when the idea of equalization of the worlds opportunity is presented. Instead prefering the stark focus on the 'European' as more important.
The exit of the EU is not the exit of europe, it is not the exit of Nato, it is not the exit of the UK from the value of freedom. It is the exit from an unelected political union that has failed its member states repeatedly, Greece, Spain, Ireland. The Euro, the EU, these are not success stories. Youth unemployment is Rife across europe largely because of the inability for the EU parliment to apply nuanced perspectives on individual, country specific situations. The EU has to paint all member states with the same brush and this impacts every country in a different way. You need only look at some of our industries to see this, others have benefited its true, but that doesn't mean those that have been decimated by Brussels policy can somehow buy their house back.
Mmm not a good example to draw.
Visa - So my girlfriend works in water management, but she's not an engineer which makes it hard to qualify for skilled visas. Let's look at the examples below:
Australia: Points system (would only make it with prior work offer - very difficult)
USA: H1 or L1 visa - not a chance! Very difficult even for me
Canada: Points system (would only make it with prior work offer - very difficult)
Japan: Category visa - None applies
Doesn't look so good does it? We'd better hope for a better deal than that. Fortunately we have mobility due to my position (I am a software engineer with 16 years experience and have strong links with one of the world's largest international companies) but don't make the mistake of thinking that normal people can just hop over and work in another country on a whim. It also means she is dependent on me... Which for a strong-minded German lady is not a good thing.
It may not look good in your Girlfriends specific case. But what you have said here is that it proves 'difficult' to move to these countries to work. Difficulty should not be a reason to be unfair the the world at large wouldn't you agree?
It looks good for the greater population of the world. The equalization of opportunity is not intolerant, it is not unfair, it is inherently more fair and inherently more tolerant. EU immigration laws made it more difficult for people from outside the EU to move here to work, it wasn't the case that people from Africa, India or Australia had the same opportunities as those from France or Germany. My own BJJ professor found this out the hard, and long way. This is inherently unfair and should not be held up as a morally superior position.
You have hope for your business - well and good. I'm sure you'll be fine, though depending on your industry you may see a drop in revenue due to the weakened economy (even if you're export-led the latest analysis indicates in most cases the weak pound is likely to be overridden by weakened demand and heightened import costs) but it's unlikely to materially affect your livelihood.
My business is Marketing. It is well known that during recession, one of the first parts of a companies budget is to cut marketing spend. So it is likely that destabilization of the economy will hit my business directly and immediately. I did not make my decision from the position of someone who's industry is unshakable. My industry is extremely fragile, especially for smaller consultation businesses like my own. So the argument that I am ignorant to the consequences is mute.
The promises that were made to you (and other people voting Leave) just aren't going to be fulfilled. They were never possible. According to law professors leaving the EU is a challenge of "incomparable challenge and depth", dwarving any previous breakup or decolonialisation of a sovereign country.
I did not vote based on the 'leave campaign'. I am of the opinion that the IN and OUT campaigns where absolutely filled with lies and half truths.
To address your points:
Free Trade
- Free trade agreements within the EU are unlikely to happen without freedom of movement and payment into the EU budget (BTW the Switzerland and Norway models were already under pressure - and they have to accept a lot of rules without even getting to vote on them!)
- Any trade deal with the EU requires national ratification giving a veto to every single EU country (all the way down to the assembly for the 76,000 strong German-speaking community of Belgium!)
- Britain outside the EEA will also have to renegotiate or reconfirm a web of EU-negotiated free trade deals with dozens of countries that anchor the UK in world commerce but are not automatically inherited if it leaves - the cost of this will be vast and has been estimated to be likely to take well over 10 years, far longer than the timeframe for leaving the EU
- Oh and the UK hardly has any skilled trade negotiators because they were all European
- Free trade agreements around the world are not predicated by the free movement of people. The idea of 'Free trade' being reliant on the freedom of movement is flawed in my opinion, as is the notion of 'free trade' at all. Free trade is simply the terms of an agreement, it is nothing more than that... this is not predicated on the free movement of anyone, and objectively neither should it be.
- I am not sure why this is a problem, the ratification of trade agreements is not a one way street. It is in the interest of EU member states to strike a mutually beneficial trade deal with the UK. The idea that 'they hold all the cards' is simply false. We too have to agree to the terms of the deals struck.
- The IN campaign made a big play of this, the 10 year timeframe is predicated largely on the thought that we would have to start from scratch on all trade. This is simply false and again an intellectually dishonest argument. The pertinent question should be ...Would ANY EU country want to be without the British market place for 10 years and what would the economic impact be of stalling negotiations for the countries we want to strike deals with. The fact is that it would be a huge loss to the economy of most EU member states if any deal negotiations were to take that long.
- The last point seems to be an emotional one rather than anything to be taken objectively. We have some of the greatest economic minds in the western world in this country.
EU Law
- EU-related law makes up at least a sixth of the UK statute book - and is signed into law
- There are also over 10,000 EU regulations with direct effect covering everything from bank and consumer rules to food standards, which cease to apply the moment Britain leaves.
- A good chance to clean the stature book? Maybe but the cost is vast and will take decades. Nothing will change any time soon.
- Many of the direct EU regulations will disappear overnight and people will wonder why they can't claim money back from their bank, get their flight refunded, why food standards have dropped, why advertising is suddenly worse etc
All of these points relate to a similar thing and work from 1 basic assumption. That the UK would have any interest in repealing or amending any of the, largely useful EU laws that we have adopted. This assumption, again, represents a logical disconnect.
There is no reason to think that the UK should or would be required to unpick the EU regulations that make up that 10,000. Many of them were present in in our system anyway and have simply been amendments and almost all of them would be as relevant to a Britain outside of the EU as inside it. The reality is we would be able to just tick off almost all of them as 'relevant' and 'can stay'.
The idea that the MOST inclusive, Law rich and cultural diverse nation on the planet would suddenly strip away basic 1st world rights like the ability to claim money from their banks, get flight refunds and maintain food standards is absolutely and totally ludicrous and again, a failure of logic. I am honestly surprised you think this would be a serious consideration for anyone in any position of power in the UK.
Cost of the EU
- Statistics given for the net cost of EU membership were not true - they are roughly £135m/week not £350m/week as the Leave statistics both weren't accurate and didn't take into account incoming funds (see the rapidly withdrawn "money for NHS pledge")
- Net cost of EU membership would be overwhelmed by even a 0.5% drop in GDP - this year GDP growth has been estimated to drop from 2% to 0.2% as a direct result of Brexit (even though nothing will have happened yet!)
135 million is still, 135 million. The fact that this is less than the 350 million that the leave campaign quoted doesn't change the fact that it is still ..135 million. A figure that dwarfs other member states membership. This should highlight the problem with the system.
The net cost of EU membership should take into account all the years of membership. Not the GDP this year. Again it is intellectually dishonest to not look at the bigger picture here.
Immigration
- Immigration is unlikely to drop to the promised level (to 10,000s from 330,000/year - promise already withdrawn) - people are NOT going to be happy about this
- Any drop will result in huge damage to the livelihood of those EU members who have made their homes here and contribute far more taxes than they take in welfare
- Those who are most likely to leave are those without families - the young and skilled who don't draw upon the state
Any drop in net immigration will have no impact at all for those already here. Again we have a logical disconnect in that the idea that lowering the yearly net immigration would directly affect those who have already moved to this country. Immigration is the movement of a NEW number of people to this country and does not consider the millions of people already here. They are, and should be, exempt from immigration figures.
Let me give you an example of the inherent problem with the EU's immigration policy.
A close friend of mine, a young man of 22 fled here when he was 4 with his mother and father from Sri Lanka. They had been persecuted and threatened with death. His mother and father are doctors. They were offered asylum in the UK and continued to work as doctors in our country. This kid excelled and was offered a place in a very prestigious university at the age of 17.
At the age of 18 he was told that he no longer qualified for asylum and would have to be deported back to Sri Lanka. He has spent the last 4 years fighting this to stay in the country he calls home, with his friends. In his time fighting this decision, he has gained 10 A levels and has had to push back his application to University 4 times. He is now facing the reality that he if he has to push back again this year, his dream of becoming a research biologist is dead. This is a truly valuable member of our society whose ability to remain in the country he grew up in is threatened.
Conversely a close friend of his, who came up through school with him as a friend and equal, applied for and got a place in university immediately and now has his degree. His friend was from an EU member state and had absolutely no hoops to jump through.
This disconnect, between the reality of immigration or asylum for those in the EU and those outside of it, is sickeningly unfair and discriminatory. It hits close to home for me and i will not accept that the EU model of immigration is better than one in which we have the say and in which the world is on an equal footing. If you think this is a fair and morally just system of inclusion and diversity ... well ...
- I'm not even going to get started on this one! Briefly, long term estimates from respectable financial institutions have estimated the medium term cost as being between 4-8% of GDP. We're likely to see a drop of about 2% just this year.
We should not get into this. It is a quagmire. I actually probably agree with you that there have been unexpected consequences. although our reasons for said falls are probably different. I am of the opinion that the lack of market security and the fall in the pound are directly related to the complete shambles of our political establishment, it is understandable that companies will not invest if they do not know how our country is going to be run or by whom.
No-one knows (and you're assuming competence and humanity on the part of the new wave of politicians). Given how central immigration was to the Leave campaign, it is unlikely to be "business as usual" unless the EU strong-arms the UK into accepting significant freedom of movement in return for access to the EEA.
- There is no legal guarantee on acquired rights once Britain leaves the EU
- It is quite likely that documentary proof of right of residence or a points system will apply to incoming - or even current - residents
- If this is anything along the lines of the existing Tier 2 system for non-EU residents, then claiming residency will be very difficult if you have any significant time outside the country (such as travelling!) or if you fail to keep documentary paperwork such as P60s
Again, you paint Britian as some backward nation of idiots when it comes to fundamental human rights and I just see no evidence of that. You talk in 'ifs', 'likelys' and 'no guarantees', the reality is that we ARE the most inclusive and diverse country in Europe. Due to our association with the ex empire countries we have a population more diverse than any other country in Europe, we had that BEFORE the EU. So the idea that we would somehow revert to some lawless nonsense is just a mis-representation of the values the UK has demonstrated and led the way in for more time than any other European Country.
Again with all that said, I wish you all the best and hope that Brexit doesnt hit you too hard where it hurts.
I hope that once our politicians grow a backbone the country can settle down a bit and return to some sort of unity. The division between the ins and outs is not as black and white as many here would and do believe. It seems that there is 90% grey and 5% either side of extreme view. The sooner we all realize that, the better it will be for this country.
peace
Chris.