WTO Rules are not as pervasive as people assume. Simply because, amazingly, there is no clear definition as to what constitutes an "export".
It is not as simple as people assume. When goods are transferred from 1 sovereign state to another, ordinarily that counts as an export (although not always).
But when it is a transfer between different constituent parts of the same country, then sometimes that counts as an export. And sometimes it does not. And, remarkably, whether 1 or both constituent regions are in or out of the EU does not seem to matter.
So-you get the faintly ridiculous trading arrangements with, say Greenland. It left the EU in order to refuse to comply with the common fisheries policy. It is not part of the EU for that purpose. It's territorial fishing rights are not subject to the same rules. It's trade is not subject to the same rules, as that is outside of the EU. Except when it comes to the import and export of goods, when, miraculously, everyone pretends it is still in the EU. Same for freedom of movement.
So-Greenlandic and outside the EU half the time, Danish and in when it suits.
And this "no land border" bit is irrelevant. 90+% of its exports are fish. Which, last time I checked, aren't big on land borders.
It is not only Denmark, with its special rules for the non-EU Greenland and Faeroes. There are also special rules for just about everywhere else, which has parts both inside and outside the EU. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal-even the UK, where some UK bases in Cyprus are allowed to pretend they are in the EU.
The natural border in relation to trade is the whole of the island of Ireland. The UK, Ireland and the EU should be organising how goods can flow freely throughout Ireland without being exported to the rest of the EU. As opposed to just blaming the UK all the time.
WTO Rules are not as pervasive as people assume. Simply because, amazingly, there is no clear definition as to what constitutes an "export".
It is not as simple as people assume. When goods are transferred from 1 sovereign state to another, ordinarily that counts as an export (although not always).
But when it is a transfer between different constituent parts of the same country, then sometimes that counts as an export. And sometimes it does not. And, remarkably, whether 1 or both constituent regions are in or out of the EU does not seem to matter.
So-you get the faintly ridiculous trading arrangements with, say Greenland. It left the EU in order to refuse to comply with the common fisheries policy. It is not part of the EU for that purpose. It's territorial fishing rights are not subject to the same rules. It's trade is not subject to the same rules, as that is outside of the EU. Except when it comes to the import and export of goods, when, miraculously, everyone pretends it is still in the EU. Same for freedom of movement.
So-Greenlandic and outside the EU half the time, Danish and in when it suits.
And this "no land border" bit is irrelevant. 90+% of its exports are fish. Which, last time I checked, aren't big on land borders.
It is not only Denmark, with its special rules for the non-EU Greenland and Faeroes. There are also special rules for just about everywhere else, which has parts both inside and outside the EU. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal-even the UK, where some UK bases in Cyprus are allowed to pretend they are in the EU.
The natural border in relation to trade is the whole of the island of Ireland. The UK, Ireland and the EU should be organising how goods can flow freely throughout Ireland without being exported to the rest of the EU. As opposed to just blaming the UK all the time.
I am not sidestepping any points. What the UK is sidestepping is the agreement we signed up to. If we dont have to have a border, why on earth do we have one? Why dont we just remove it?
UK's new PM Truss wants negotiated solution on N.Ireland protocol
In his first remarks as Britain's new Northern Ireland minister, Chris Heaton-Harris said earlier that he believed that there is a "fairly obvious landing zone" for an agreement.
Britain's junior minister for the region, Conor Burns, also told parliament that he had "constructive and prolonged talks" with the EU's post-Brexit negotiator, European Commissioner Maros Sefcovic, at a conference last weekend.
Sefcovic told the British-Irish Association that Brussels has been calling for almost a year for London to engage with it on proposals it made to simplify the trade rules and that this offer still stood for the new government.
Backlash as arch-Brexiteer appointed to Northern Ireland Office
Liz Truss has been accused of sending a “destructive message” to the EU by handing arch-Brexiteer Steve Baker a ministerial role in the Northern Ireland Office.
The decision was branded “obnoxious” and a “red flag” by SDLP MP Claire Hanna, as she claimed Ms Truss appeared to be “continuing down the diplomatically ignorant route of her predecessor”.
Mr Baker, who organised the Brexiteer revolt that ultimately brought down Theresa May, has described the Northern Ireland Protocol as “a thorn in the side of relations between us and Ireland”.
He has supported the Government’s controversial proposed reforms to the post-Brexit treaty, which have exacerbated tensions with the EU.
White House warns Truss over efforts to ‘undo’ Northern Ireland protocol
The White House was taken by surprise by Truss’s announcement in May, when she was foreign secretary, that the government would proceed with legislation that would rewrite parts of the protocol, in a manner widely considered to be a breach of international law. Boris Johnson had assured the Biden team that no decision had been taken.
The legislation is winding its way through parliament and the US has warned the government not to put it to a vote or risk rupture with both the US and EU.
The tension was evident in pointed differences between the official accounts of the Truss-Biden phone call. The Downing Street version said they had “agreed on the importance of protecting the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement”.
The White House readout said they “discussed their shared commitment to protecting the gains of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the importance of reaching a negotiated agreement with the European Union on the Northern Ireland protocol”.
I have just got around to reading the in-depth article signposted in the msn article.
This is madness.
Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Not the EU. But the steel tariff rules mean that Northern Ireland has to pay a 25% tariff on UK steel imports. And 0% on EU imports. Why?
Because of a unilateral decision by the EU.
So-and I struggle to believe this-a sovereign nation-the UK-has to pay a tariff to ship goods to another part of the UK. Because the EU says so. And we have to pay a tariff to the EU regardless of whether the goods ever cross the border into the EU. While steel via Ireland is automatically cheaper.
So-not only do we have to pay for the privilege of policing the border on behalf of the EU. Purely for the benefit of the EU. We have to pay the EU for steel which has absolutely nothing to do with them. Not if it crosses into the EU.
If anyone genuinely believes that this isn't a clear breach of the Good Friday Agreement, then they live in a different world to me.
Isnt this called having your cake and eating it?
Didnt Boris put a trade border in the Irish Sea?
Didnt NI remain in the SM/CU?
Wasnt this done in the name of preserving the GFA, and avoiding a hard border in Ireland?
Didnt this give NI the best of both worlds?
Short answer. No.
This is the EU having its cake and eating it.
The agreement included a clause which would avoid the need for this tariff. This has been cancelled in June by the EU unilaterally.
Try reading your own articles and you will see what I mean. They have used the situation in Ukraine as an excuse to increase the price of UK steel. In the UK.
That is a very biased interpretation.
Should we have made the EU swear that they wouldnt change any rules ever, before we left. As we now wish to continue the grace periods for ever, maybe we should have made them swear to not changing the rules for us after we left, from when we were members. We always seem to want the penny and the bun.
As the article says, this has come into effect because NI follows EU customs rules, as per the protocol. This is something you continually ignore. When the EU introduce rules affecting third countries, they obviously affect the UK because we have left. When the UK export to NI, we are effectively exporting to the EU. We were in fact using the UK tariff quota to the EU, for these exports. Where we find a rule that doesnt suit us, we wish to scream like stuck pigs Yet we ignore the thousands of rules that are in our favour. These tariffs apply to all other countries, not just us.
Had we gone for the backstop, this rule wouldnt have applied as the UK would have remained intact. It only applies because of the protocol, which we signed. You surely cant expect the EU not to change any rules ever. Or even just change rules that dont affect us.
Where would we have been if the EU had refused to agree to an Irish Sea border? Shouldnt they be charging us pro rata for NI membership?
It is unlikely to affect the construction industry in NI, as they are more likely to buy from the EU, and avoid the tariff. Something that may apply to many more products in the future.
The EU is the largest Protectionist organisation in the World.
That we were members of for almost 50 years. We helped write the rules, and very rarely voted against of any of them.
That is its prerogative. What is not is that we should be expected to pay to be their police force, and to pay them a tariff for goods that are never going to the EU.
I believe the EU intended to police the NI side of the border, but we declined their offer. If there were an Irish land border, the EU would police the other side.
Put simply, Northern Ireland was temporarily put into the Customs Union for political expediency. So the rest of the UK could leave the EU. Something which had been completely ignored by both Leavers and Remainers when it mattered.
I dont believe it was ignored. Theresa May came up with the backstop. The ERG swore by technological solutions that didnt exist. Boris thought the protocol was a better solution, and agreed to it. Seemingly without knowing how it would actually work. I am not sure how temporary it was meant to be. It was put in place until Stormont vote against it. If they did, what could replace it? Where would the EU/UK border go? The fact is that many NI companies are benefitting from being part of the EU, completely free of charge. If I owned a construction company in NI, I would purchase all my products from those that could supply the quality required at the cheapest price. Whether those suppliers were in the EU or UK. Irrespective of whether the prices were affected by tariffs or not. We just want to focus on sausage wars, and steel tariffs.
Now? It is not Northern Ireland that has the best of both worlds. It is the EU. Getting us to pay to police their protectionist borders.
Our insistence.
Why? We are perfectly willing to allow frictionless trade both sides of the Border. And good luck to the EU trying to prevent that. Because it has always happened at a local level. And always will.
NI is still in the SM/CU, the rest of the UK isnt.
Going forward, the UK should not be paying for all this. There are lots of options:-
There always were lots of options, but we agreed to the protocol.
1. Northern Ireland reverts to being in the UK for trade purposes. If the EU insists on providing trade barriers, so be it. That is not our problem. That is the EU's. 2. Northern Ireland reverts to being part of all-Ireland. Plenty of support from Sinn Fein etc for all this. Would love to know what the plan is to stop Loyalist paramilitaries torching the place. And where a lot of people are going to live. Because it will just be 1921 in reverse. 3. The whole of the UK joins the Customs Union at 1 level or another. The sensible solution. The 1 I would prefer. But it is not going to happen.
There is no simple solution. With Ireland, there never is. But pretending that everything is fine the way it is currently is just plain wrong.
Change is inevitable. And rather scary.
I have not said everything is fine. I believe that we should honour our agreements. Where this proves difficult, we should honestly negotiate our way out of them. Anyone that maintains Brexit is done is a fool. Perhaps we need a Labour Government to sort it out, but they are not saying very much about it. When we are eventually forced to end the grace periods, there will be more problems rather than less.
I am really surprised you chose this story to argue over.
We have people in the UK that will stamp their foot, and shout from the rooftops that NI is part of the UK. This is despite the Irish Sea border, that NI remains in the SM/CU, and is subject to EU rules. The same people will ignore the fact that we were able to export steel, tariff free to NI, by using the TRQ for UK exports to the EU. They ignore this and dont argue about NI being in the EU, because it was to our advantage.
The same people will claim that the EU is victimising and persecuting the UK, when the rules are changed. This is despite the fact that circumstances have changed, and the new rules affect every non EU country in the world.
When we were exporting steel tariff free to NI using our EU quota, nobody said a word.
Bring back the backstop.
I also believe we should honour agreements.
Starting with the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Continuing through to the Good Friday Agreement, which states that neither Unionist or Nationalist should be disadvantaged, which is clearly not happening when different rules apply in relation to NI trade.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Any temporary trade borders do not stop that being the case. In addition, Ireland has a long-standing freedom of movement with the UK, which predates the EU. It is just not on that all the rules only work one way.
It is a ridiculous state of affairs when we have to pay a tariff to the EU to "export" steel purely within the UK. Northern Ireland is not part of the EU.
Cannot understand how you can both maintain the position that ther UK cannot seek to alter agreements, and yet the EU apparently can with impunity.
We need to fully reintegrate NI back into the UK. Or hold a vote as to whether it wishes to be part of the UK or Ireland.
But not this pathetic state of affairs.
Ni remains in the SM/CU, and is subject to EU rules. No. It is not part of the EU. There is a simple solution to avoiding the Single Market Rules. Remove it from the Single Market The border in the Irish sea separates NI from GB. So what? Still part of the UK. Much bigger spaces separate Greenland from Denmark, French Guiana from France etc-but none of those places have these handicaps placed on them. The article clearly states that our steel exports to NI, were included in our EU quota. Yes. But 1 party has unilaterally changed the rules. No better than what the UK is threatening at various junctures. Difference is, they have actually done it, not just talked about it. Many companies claim to be better off as a result of the protocol. Always winners and losers, whichever way you do things. Doesn't make it right. I expect the EU to amend their rules, where circumstances change. As should the UK. Things are not working. For a variety of reasons. Cannot expect the UK to be hamstrung by the other side being free to change, while we are not. You surely dont expect the EU to never change their rules ever? Of course not. But, when rules affect another country, that country must re-evaluate whether the deal should continue. Stormont get a vote on the protocol in 2024. Yes. There is a distinct possibility that this will be the biggest recruitment drive for sectarian paramilitaries since the 1970s The rules are what was agreed.
So. Your position is that we are bound by agreements and the EU are not? What a ridiculous position to take.
Removing NI from the SM would increase the number of checks rather than reduce them. There has to be a border between two different customs territories. WTO rules insist on this. The EU has, due to changing circumstances amended their tariff quota with the whole world. The UK is introducing legislation to breach an agreement it signed the other day. The UK has refused to end the grace periods, which were also part of the agreement. I really cant see how free access to the SM makes a business worse off. If it did why were we members for nearly 50 years. NI were members all that time, so nothing has changed for them. The change in circumstances for the EU was a war in Europe, what is our excuse? We could replace the protocol by honestly negotiating an alternative. If there was one. We can also decide whether or not to export steel to the EU, including NI, or not. Your summary of my position is not true. The EU have bent over backwards to reduce the number of checks. The fact that this is impossible has nothing to do with the EU. There has to be a border. The Unionists wont wear one. It doesnt help that Boris lied to them and conned them. If Stormont voted against the protocol in 2024, what do you think should replace it? Where are you going to put the border?
None of this is true in the actual world we live in.
Greenland left the EU because it refused to abide by EU fishing quotas. It does not abide by EU Law, yet retains lots of rights, such as freedom of movement, both to Denmark and the wider European Union.
Trade barriers? None. 92.7% of exports go to the EU. Most of it is the fish that caused them to leave the EU in the first place. No border between 2 distinct customs territories. No rules whatsoever.
Trade barriers on our side of the border with Ireland? None. Irish people free to live and work here. Free movement of goods on our side of the border.
The EU most certainly have not "bent over backwards". Compare & contrast checks on Northern Ireland with every other territory where only part of a country is in the EU.
There has to be a border. But there does not have to be friction.
Brussels offers to reduce border controls in Northern Ireland
In this regard, he has indicated that physical checks would only be carried out in the case of "reasonable suspicion of illegal trade, smuggling, illegal drugs, dangerous toys or poisoned food". This would mean that controls would be reduced to a "couple of trucks a day".
It is certainly true to say that various people were talking pony when they claimed a deal with the US would be easy once we left the EU.
The EU have been trying and failing to get a trade deal with the US since before our Referendum. In reality, a lot of trade between the 2 is on modified WTO Rules. There has been so little progress made between the 2 that negotiations were formally scrapped in 2019.
In reality, the US could not politically sanction a UK deal without a EU deal, and vice versa. Neither are remotely close.
So-if we were still in the EU, we would be in exactly the same position as we are in now.
It is certainly true to say that various people were talking pony when they claimed a deal with the US would be easy once we left the EU.
The EU have been trying and failing to get a trade deal with the US since before our Referendum. In reality, a lot of trade between the 2 is on modified WTO Rules. There has been so little progress made between the 2 that negotiations were formally scrapped in 2019.
In reality, the US could not politically sanction a UK deal without a EU deal, and vice versa. Neither are remotely close.
So-if we were still in the EU, we would be in exactly the same position as we are in now.
As you say, we would have been aware of the difficulties in negotiating a USA trade deal, through our experience in the EU. Yet during the referendum campaign many prominent Brexiteers ignored these difficulties, and sold the electorate on the fact that a USA deal would be easy soon after we left. They claimed that this deal would far outweigh any small amount of trade that we might have lost with the EU. So in those terms it can be seen as a "Brexit failure", and just another instance of the public being conned.
These aren't "Brexit Immigration Rules". They are the UK's own Immigration Rules, which we are (in theory) free to alter in response to the UK's needs, rather than just the EU.
That should be a massive advantage. Unfortunately, this Government is so busy pandering to the Right of the Party on an anti-immigration stance, that this potential advantage is (at least for now) non-existent.
We need to stop the rhetoric demonising people who want to come here to work. We need to have a coherent strategy as to how to compete against the EU for certain workers. The ones that we need. And we need to be up-front with potential Employers, because they need to be able to plan. It's not a secret, for goodness sake.
This is not "Brexit's" fault. It is the fault of a Government that is failing to adapt to changing circumstances.
Brexit should, like any major change, involve both advantages and disadvantages. But it is this Government that is both ignoring the disadvantages and failing to capitalise on the advantages.
These aren't "Brexit Immigration Rules". They are the UK's own Immigration Rules, which we are (in theory) free to alter in response to the UK's needs, rather than just the EU.
That should be a massive advantage. Unfortunately, this Government is so busy pandering to the Right of the Party on an anti-immigration stance, that this potential advantage is (at least for now) non-existent.
We need to stop the rhetoric demonising people who want to come here to work. We need to have a coherent strategy as to how to compete against the EU for certain workers. The ones that we need. And we need to be up-front with potential Employers, because they need to be able to plan. It's not a secret, for goodness sake.
This is not "Brexit's" fault. It is the fault of a Government that is failing to adapt to changing circumstances.
Brexit should, like any major change, involve both advantages and disadvantages. But it is this Government that is both ignoring the disadvantages and failing to capitalise on the advantages.
If only the Tories had a plan. Many people voted for Brexit in order to end freedom of movement. Therefore opening the doors will be foolishly seen by enthusiastic Leave voters, as a u-turn. The way in which some industries were likely to struggle as a result was ignored. The industries that have struggled the most are those that offer the poorest rates of pay. This could be addressed by improving pay and conditions, but that seems unlikely. Many Brits refuse to accept menial, lowly paid jobs.
Immigration seems to be a very touchy subject.
The first step towards solving this problem will be to come up with a plan that actually works.
Comments
WTO Rules are not as pervasive as people assume. Simply because, amazingly, there is no clear definition as to what constitutes an "export".
It is not as simple as people assume. When goods are transferred from 1 sovereign state to another, ordinarily that counts as an export (although not always).
But when it is a transfer between different constituent parts of the same country, then sometimes that counts as an export. And sometimes it does not. And, remarkably, whether 1 or both constituent regions are in or out of the EU does not seem to matter.
So-you get the faintly ridiculous trading arrangements with, say Greenland. It left the EU in order to refuse to comply with the common fisheries policy. It is not part of the EU for that purpose. It's territorial fishing rights are not subject to the same rules. It's trade is not subject to the same rules, as that is outside of the EU. Except when it comes to the import and export of goods, when, miraculously, everyone pretends it is still in the EU. Same for freedom of movement.
So-Greenlandic and outside the EU half the time, Danish and in when it suits.
And this "no land border" bit is irrelevant. 90+% of its exports are fish. Which, last time I checked, aren't big on land borders.
It is not only Denmark, with its special rules for the non-EU Greenland and Faeroes. There are also special rules for just about everywhere else, which has parts both inside and outside the EU. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal-even the UK, where some UK bases in Cyprus are allowed to pretend they are in the EU.
The natural border in relation to trade is the whole of the island of Ireland. The UK, Ireland and the EU should be organising how goods can flow freely throughout Ireland without being exported to the rest of the EU. As opposed to just blaming the UK all the time.
What the UK is sidestepping is the agreement we signed up to.
If we dont have to have a border, why on earth do we have one?
Why dont we just remove it?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-opportunities-role-ditched-with-no-replacement-for-jacob-rees-mogg/ar-AA11z3TU?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2798e5f5f1af4752be2fee6df2103789
In his first remarks as Britain's new Northern Ireland minister, Chris Heaton-Harris said earlier that he believed that there is a "fairly obvious landing zone" for an agreement.
Britain's junior minister for the region, Conor Burns, also told parliament that he had "constructive and prolonged talks" with the EU's post-Brexit negotiator, European Commissioner Maros Sefcovic, at a conference last weekend.
Sefcovic told the British-Irish Association that Brussels has been calling for almost a year for London to engage with it on proposals it made to simplify the trade rules and that this offer still stood for the new government.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-s-new-pm-truss-wants-negotiated-solution-on-n-ireland-protocol/ar-AA11yNud?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2798e5f5f1af4752be2fee6df2103789
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-pulls-the-plug-on-bill-of-rights-designed-to-free-uk-from-european-courts/ar-AA11zrmf?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1e6d13801a2f4f438888b426446d4b20
Liz Truss has been accused of sending a “destructive message” to the EU by handing arch-Brexiteer Steve Baker a ministerial role in the Northern Ireland Office.
The decision was branded “obnoxious” and a “red flag” by SDLP MP Claire Hanna, as she claimed Ms Truss appeared to be “continuing down the diplomatically ignorant route of her predecessor”.
Mr Baker, who organised the Brexiteer revolt that ultimately brought down Theresa May, has described the Northern Ireland Protocol as “a thorn in the side of relations between us and Ireland”.
He has supported the Government’s controversial proposed reforms to the post-Brexit treaty, which have exacerbated tensions with the EU.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/backlash-arch-brexiteer-appointed-northern-180313577.html
The White House was taken by surprise by Truss’s announcement in May, when she was foreign secretary, that the government would proceed with legislation that would rewrite parts of the protocol, in a manner widely considered to be a breach of international law. Boris Johnson had assured the Biden team that no decision had been taken.
The legislation is winding its way through parliament and the US has warned the government not to put it to a vote or risk rupture with both the US and EU.
The tension was evident in pointed differences between the official accounts of the Truss-Biden phone call. The Downing Street version said they had “agreed on the importance of protecting the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement”.
The White House readout said they “discussed their shared commitment to protecting the gains of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the importance of reaching a negotiated agreement with the European Union on the Northern Ireland protocol”.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/white-house-warns-truss-over-efforts-to-undo-northern-ireland-protocol/ar-AA11zz8L?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8f1a98d57649415faaf4837f6724d0fc
The amount of friction was within our control.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/spanish-squatter-gangs-invade-homes-of-british-expats/ar-AA11DFRx?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f4c26f2fdafa4c729e5de2be588031d7
In this regard, he has indicated that physical checks would only be carried out in the case of "reasonable suspicion of illegal trade, smuggling, illegal drugs, dangerous toys or poisoned food". This would mean that controls would be reduced to a "couple of trucks a day".
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brussels-offers-to-reduce-border-controls-in-northern-ireland/ar-AA11IDD1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=646a484414e2475ba8fa5cf915c67867
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-uk-tells-eu-it-will-extend-grace-periods-on-northern-ireland-border-checks/ar-AA11RGjD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5a9f67b2395943cd8f85403587f7543a
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/liz-truss-admits-talks-us-050045502.html
It is certainly true to say that various people were talking pony when they claimed a deal with the US would be easy once we left the EU.
The EU have been trying and failing to get a trade deal with the US since before our Referendum. In reality, a lot of trade between the 2 is on modified WTO Rules. There has been so little progress made between the 2 that negotiations were formally scrapped in 2019.
In reality, the US could not politically sanction a UK deal without a EU deal, and vice versa. Neither are remotely close.
So-if we were still in the EU, we would be in exactly the same position as we are in now.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/uk-considers-joining-european-political-123514665.html
Yet during the referendum campaign many prominent Brexiteers ignored these difficulties, and sold the electorate on the fact that a USA deal would be easy soon after we left.
They claimed that this deal would far outweigh any small amount of trade that we might have lost with the EU.
So in those terms it can be seen as a "Brexit failure", and just another instance of the public being conned.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tony-blair-secretly-helping-the-government-with-northern-ireland-protocol/ar-AA125Nln?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b308359a820a4e9a9d41480de23ea56d
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-is-driving-support-for-breaking-up-the-uk-and-electoral-reform/ar-AA126rkP?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=77522f714fe04bbc958e5fbfeb933ad6
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/kwasi-kwarteng-refuses-to-confirm-changes-to-brexit-immigration-rules/ar-AA12fohq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c4971b825d9d4efb9091864d548f7b55
That should be a massive advantage. Unfortunately, this Government is so busy pandering to the Right of the Party on an anti-immigration stance, that this potential advantage is (at least for now) non-existent.
We need to stop the rhetoric demonising people who want to come here to work. We need to have a coherent strategy as to how to compete against the EU for certain workers. The ones that we need. And we need to be up-front with potential Employers, because they need to be able to plan. It's not a secret, for goodness sake.
This is not "Brexit's" fault. It is the fault of a Government that is failing to adapt to changing circumstances.
Brexit should, like any major change, involve both advantages and disadvantages. But it is this Government that is both ignoring the disadvantages and failing to capitalise on the advantages.
If only the Tories had a plan.
Many people voted for Brexit in order to end freedom of movement.
Therefore opening the doors will be foolishly seen by enthusiastic Leave voters, as a u-turn.
The way in which some industries were likely to struggle as a result was ignored.
The industries that have struggled the most are those that offer the poorest rates of pay.
This could be addressed by improving pay and conditions, but that seems unlikely.
Many Brits refuse to accept menial, lowly paid jobs.
Immigration seems to be a very touchy subject.
The first step towards solving this problem will be to come up with a plan that actually works.