[Politics] Brexit

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Spare a thought to those of us out there that are just about keeping our heads above water and absolutely no way of affording a holiday.
It's been like this for many people, over many years now.

May be some of us voted Leave because we want something new, we shouldn't be called morons or wankers, it's just not very nice.
If you want to blame someone, blame the banks, politicians and the EU. It is their decisions that got us here, nobody else.

If you are barely keeping your head above water why did you vote for Brexit, you do realise everything is about to get more expensive for your average person on the street? Tesco etc aren't going to suck up the hit of a devalued pound on their bottom line, it will end up hitting the poorest hardest.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

If you are barely keeping your head above water why did you vote for Brexit, you do realise everything is about to get more expensive for your average person on the street? Tesco etc aren't going to suck up the hit of a devalued pound on their bottom line, it will end up hitting the poorest hardest.

We voted for Brexit because we don't feel we are going anywhere that's why. My wife was made redundant in April, nothing to do with Brexit. We are getting by, and we will still continue to get by even if that means me getting another job and cleaning toilets, we will survive. We also shop at Lidl, so being without Marmite is not the end of the world.

 

[Icy Gull]

Can a Leave voter fill me in on when we'll start feeling the benefits of voting Leave? It all seems a bit shit at the moment and I don't see any upsides at all. Maybe if I manufactured things and exported them or earned in a foreign currency I might feel differently but when will your average Joe feel the benefits of this decision? Some seem to think they have great insight into why Leaving was a good idea so this should be a relatively simple question to answer?

 

[Guy Crouchback]

Can a Leave voter fill me in on when we'll start feeling the benefits of voting Leave? (...) Some seem to think they have great insight into why Leaving was a good idea so this should be a relatively simple question to answer?

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

As for the pound dropping sharply... well, if you pull down your trousers, bend over and spread your butt cheeks, you shouldn't be surprised if a case of uninvited anal penetration happens to you. Simple as that.

 

[5ways]

The MP's don't need to debate it. They represent the people. The people voted out.

Get on with it.

Not quite how Parliament works.

 

[5ways]

Can a Leave voter fill me in on when we'll start feeling the benefits of voting Leave? It all seems a bit shit at the moment and I don't see any upsides at all. Maybe if I manufactured things and exported them or earned in a foreign currency I might feel differently but when will your average Joe feel the benefits of this decision? Some seem to think they have great insight into why Leaving was a good idea so this should be a relatively simple question to answer?

Having decided to shoot ourselves in both feet we may be discharged from the asylum in 2019-2020 having actually left the EU and so begin the slow road of recovery. We won't regain full fitness, the damage is permanent, but we might be able to stand up and hobble around.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Can a Leave voter fill me in on when we'll start feeling the benefits of voting Leave? It all seems a bit shit at the moment and I don't see any upsides at all. Maybe if I manufactured things and exported them or earned in a foreign currency I might feel differently but when will your average Joe feel the benefits of this decision? Some seem to think they have great insight into why Leaving was a good idea so this should be a relatively simple question to answer?

All the leave voters I know have elsewhere and on this board, stated that it will take a long time to settle down. That was a given, given the markets wanted us to remain. Yet we have the pathetic bed wetter Nick Clegg saying yesterday that somehow leaving was presented as the answer to all our ills. Anyone with any common sense whichever way they wanted the referendum to go, knew that wouldn't be the case. I along with many others voted to regain lost sovereignty, not become richer. Remainers have, wrongly said that most people voted about immigration. Well if that's right, then there's the remain camp to blame for that, the scare tactics about the economy were completely misguided and just turned people off.

The amount of panic from remainers is quite alarming. I understand some people have lost money, that is never something to be pleased about whatever side of the divide one is on. And some are worried about the future, the future is undecided at the moment, half the country seems hell-bent on pessimistically panicking and talking the country down. It's not the time to take a short term view but rather, a mature one which understands that this huge step will understandably be a long time in unraveling. Our country doesn't suddenly become a bad place to invest in or do business in. It's time to hold our nerve and look to a future in which we can work with friendly countries, not dominate, nor be dominated.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I doubt very much 'millions' of people exchange money at airports because anyone with common sense will get more for their money on the highstreet!

.
I think you grossly over estimate how many people have common sense. Millions voted to leave the EU.

 

[pb21]

*sigh*

Pound is 'most overvalued currency in the world', analysts claim

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ued-currency-in-the-world-analysts-claim.html

Not my problem you misread/misinterpreted my first post, I didn't claim the IMF specifically forecast the pound would fall as low as $1.15.

*sigh*

You originally claimed economists and the IMF said that the £ would fall to $1.15 in 2016. They didn't though.

You then said that the IMF actually said it was 15% overvalued. Not the same thing, and not what has happened.

You then changed your tune and claimed that it was DB who said it would fall to $1.15 in 2016. They didn't though.

You have now changed your tune again. This time, with an actual source, saying that the £ would fall to $1.15 in 2017 not. This time it seems they did.

 

[mwrpoole]

I along with many others voted to regain lost sovereignty, not become richer. Remainers have, wrongly said that most people voted about immigration. Well if that's right, then there's the remain camp to blame for that, the scare tactics about the economy were completely misguided and just turned people off.

I voted remain but most of my family and lots of friends voted leave. There no.1 reason was immigration, plain and simple. They liked the idea of closing down the borders to help alleviate housing/NHS/schools plus some were a bit more 'too many of them live near me' attitude. I don't see how the remain camp can be blamed for that.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

I voted remain but most of my family and lots of friends voted leave. There no.1 reason was immigration, plain and simple. They liked the idea of closing down the borders to help alleviate housing/NHS/schools plus some were a bit more 'too many of them live near me' attitude. I don't see how the remain camp can be blamed for that.

You do realise you're going to be sanctimoned (sic) to within an inch of your life, don't you?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Small news update. Leave campaigners Migration Watch used inaccurate figures to claim that 110,000 foreign students vanish annually The Times reports today. Latest Home Office figures suggest that the actual figure is 1500. The Home Office is refusing to share the full data with other departments and has rejected FoI requests from the press. May has previously refused her Home Secretary's plan to exclude temporary students from the overall migration lists. The lies and deceits go on.

Meanwhile, more importantly for some, Tesco is removing Marmite from its shelves as a direct result of the Brexit currency collapse. Marmite!

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Can a Leave voter fill me in on when we'll start feeling the benefits of voting Leave? It all seems a bit shit at the moment and I don't see any upsides at all. Maybe if I manufactured things and exported them or earned in a foreign currency I might feel differently but when will your average Joe feel the benefits of this decision? Some seem to think they have great insight into why Leaving was a good idea so this should be a relatively simple question to answer?

I didn't vote Leave, but surely there will be no benefit until we actually have left - which is a while off yet.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I voted remain but most of my family and lots of friends voted leave. There no.1 reason was immigration, plain and simple. They liked the idea of closing down the borders to help alleviate housing/NHS/schools plus some were a bit more 'too many of them live near me' attitude. I don't see how the remain camp can be blamed for that.

Yep. I realise there's a very vocal element on here who will continue to try to convince everyone that all Leave voters were actually motivated by some weird notion of "sovereignty" and "taking back control" but it's just not true.

Everyone I know who voted leave did so because of immigration. Because they don't understand how immigration works or they are racist. Or both.

I'm not trying to tar everyone with the same brush. I get that Leave won because the campaign was so vague that lots of people voted for lots of obscure reasons.

I just haven't met any of them, and this is a FACT that lots of people seem to want to deny.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I voted remain but most of my family and lots of friends voted leave. There no.1 reason was immigration, plain and simple. They liked the idea of closing down the borders to help alleviate housing/NHS/schools plus some were a bit more 'too many of them live near me' attitude. I don't see how the remain camp can be blamed for that.

Yes, I noticed the MP for Canterbury saying something similar- huge numbers in Canterbury voted out because of a local housing crisis caused by immigrants according to him. The City Council has since explained that the cause was actually student numbers. Big press campaigns against migrants plus a mix of bent 'facts' from politicians with agendas equals large anti-immigrant vote. And the Brexit campaign CAN be blamed for that.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Small news update. Leave campaigners Migration Watch used inaccurate figures to claim that 110,000 foreign students vanish annually The Times reports today. Latest Home Office figures suggest that the actual figure is 1500. The Home Office is refusing to share the full data with other departments and has rejected FoI requests from the press. May has previously refused her Home Secretary's plan to exclude temporary students from the overall migration lists. The lies and deceits go on.

Meanwhile, more importantly for some, Tesco is removing Marmite from its shelves as a direct result of the Brexit currency collapse. Marmite!

Just read that myself:

Ministers hide report on migrant numbers
Foreign students overstated by tens of thousands

Only 1 per cent of international students break the terms of their visa by refusing to leave after their course ends, a secret government study has found.

The research threatens to undermine Theresa May’s case for a crackdown on foreign student recruitment and calls into question past estimates that put the figure far higher. Official statistics have been used to suggest that tens of thousands of foreign students “vanish” each year after finishing their degrees, but the latest study would suggest that the true figure is 1,500.

The Home Office, which commissioned the analysis, disputed that it was conclusive and said that the work was “not completed”. It has refused to share the study with other Whitehall ministries and rebuffed requests from The Times to release it, including under the Freedom of Information Act.

The research examined data from the first year of exit checks, which were reinstated last year, and record details of travellers leaving and arriving at British borders. The checks, covering the 12 months to last April, include statistics on the number of people who left early after arriving on a student visa, applied to switch category, such as to a visa for skilled work, or overstayed once their documents had expired.

A source in Whitehall said it showed that the proportion of non-EU students at British universities who remained beyond their permitted date was very small. “The exit check data shows only about 1 per cent of students overstay,” the source said. “There are some switchers but the rest leave.” Based on past estimates this would be equivalent to about 1,500 people a year, though students sponsored by language schools, technical colleges and private colleges may have higher overstaying rates, which would push up the total. An investigation by The Times also found:

Britain could lose much of its £11 billion income from international students as rivals led by the United States, Canada and Australia push ahead in the global higher education market.

• Some degrees at leading universities, particularly postgraduate courses in technical subjects, would not survive without overseas students.

• Amber Rudd, the home secretary, tried to have students removed from net migration figures, enabling them to avoid the crackdown on migrants, but was over-ruled by Mrs May.

The Home Office has previously used the International Passenger Survey by the Office for National Statistics to calculate numbers of students who overstay. This survey interviews samples of travellers and uses these to estimate migration trends. The Migration Watch campaign group, which calls for tighter immigration controls, has used the survey’s findings to argue that about 110,000 foreign students “vanish” annually through overstaying, finding work, marrying or enrolling in further study.

Such large estimates of net student migration have driven the government’s plans for a consultation on stricter rules for international students, announced by Ms Rudd last week. She told the Conservative Party conference that she would look at restricting the “favourable employment prospects” for overseas students after their courses, raising thresholds for proficiency in English and introducing tougher rules for foreign students on “lower-quality courses”.

The Brexit vote and the Leave camp’s call to take control of immigration has put fresh pressure on ministers to fulfil their manifesto pledge to bring down net migration to the tens of thousands, amid embarrassment that it climbed to 330,000 under Mrs May. Overseas students are one of the largest groups.

Throughout her time as home secretary, Mrs May tried to root out abuse and make Britain less attractive to foreign students. About 920 colleges have lost their licence to bring international students to Britain since 2010.

The latest proposals have led to tensions within the government. Some ministers are alarmed at the financial and reputational impact on universities and exports. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, suggested that his department had some evidence that student visas were being misused to obtain free access to the NHS via “health tourism”.

“I think there’s growing frustration as the penny drops that May really means business and the usual Treasury brake isn’t going to work,” a senior government figure said.

A previous analysis commissioned by Mr Hunt’s department in 2013 calculated that students from beyond the European Economic Area cost the NHS about £430 million a year, or £736 per student, but said “health tourists” brought significantly higher costs.

There are broader fears among ministers that the number of foreign students on some campuses has added to pressure on local public services.

Shifts in support within Whitehall are watched closely by universities, which previously had strong backing from the Treasury and Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the old Department for Business. Mrs May has switched responsibility for higher education to the Department for Education, whose chief focus is schools, while research funding remains with the re-styled Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

The prime minister wants universities to rely less on overseas students for revenue. The Home Office said that it was continuing to “assess and analyse” exit-check data “to understand the extent to which estimates provided are statistically robust”.

It also features in the editorial:

Welcome Students

The government should be doing all it can to attract high-calibre foreign students. Instead it is deterring them with tough visa rules based on false assumptions

In Theresa May’s first set-piece speech on Brexit at the Tory party conference, she offered a vision of a “global Britain” that understood the referendum was “not a vote to turn in on ourselves”. The prime minister was right that looking out, not in, is how to make the best of Brexit. Yet the following day her home secretary, Amber Rudd, promised even tighter rules on student visas than those who wish to study here already face after a six-year crackdown by her predecessor.

This was a threat based on narrow party politics and, as we report today, on bogus numbers. If it becomes policy it will harm universities, the wider economy and the “soft” British power to which Mrs May rightly attaches such importance.

Ms Rudd’s remarks in Birmingham on foreign students were overshadowed by the strongly negative reaction to those on foreign workers. They are, however, just as damaging to Britain’s image abroad and precisely the wrong sort of signal to be sending as the rest of the world gauges what Brexit really means.

The government’s position on student visas would be self-defeating even if its assumptions on the number of foreign students who overstay their visas were broadly accurate. But they are not. The figure most often used to justify the Home Office’s long struggle to bring down foreign student numbers is an estimate of 110,000 a year thought to stay on after graduating. The figure is based on the International Passenger Survey, which is itself based on interviews with randomly sampled travellers, not hard data. A more useful figure comes from the first year of exit checks at Britain’s ports and airports, which found that only 1 per cent of foreign university students, or about 1,500 a year, outstay their visas.

The truth is that Mrs May’s battle against bogus higher education colleges that acted as Trojan horses for illegal immigration has been won. Foreign students who attend British colleges and universities under the present rules are a boon to Britain’s world-beating student culture. They contribute £11 billion a year to the economy, including 12 per cent of total university funding. Their skills are invaluable to an economy that will depend more than ever on international relationships, applied research and improved productivity.

Far from deterring foreigners from seeking to study here, Britain should be doing more to encourage and keep them. Far from worrying about their impact on net migration numbers that Mrs May still says she wants to cut to the tens of thousands, the government should remove foreign students from the migrant count altogether. Mrs May succeeded as home secretary in reducing the number of student visas granted for one and two-year courses at private colleges from 110,000 to 18,000. She needs urgently to acknowledge that as prime minister her assessment of the merits of foreign students must be based on more than unattainable immigration targets and unfounded assumptions.

The 1 per cent overstay figure that we publish today has been kept quiet by ministers for the worst possible reason. It undermines a central plank of the government’s strategy for cutting immigration. The vast majority of foreign students return home, obeying a needlessly draconian rule that they must do so within four months of finishing their course if not employed by then in a “graduate- level” job earning at least £20,000 a year.

Britain’s universities are one of its greatest strengths. Higher education should be a fast-growing export, but foreign student numbers are flat while those in Canada are soaring. Now more than ever, the government needs to reassure the world that Brexit does not mean introversion. The damage inflicted at the Conservative conference has been done. The first real test of Mrs May’s leadership is to recognise this, and fix it.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ministers-hide-report-on-migrant-numbers-dv8dbj7cz
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/welcome-students-wk6hzxmqv

 

[LlcoolJ]

Spare a thought to those of us out there that are just about keeping our heads above water and absolutely no way of affording a holiday.
It's been like this for many people, over many years now.

May be some of us voted Leave because we want something new, we shouldn't be called morons or wankers, it's just not very nice.
If you want to blame someone, blame the banks, politicians and the EU. It is their decisions that got us here, nobody else.

What "something new" did you think you were going to get though?

I do care about people struggling to make ends meet, I just have no idea why anyone in that situation would vote to screw themselves further by ruining the economy of the country.

The poorest always get hit the hardest.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

*sigh*

You originally claimed economists and the IMF said that the £ would fall to $1.15 in 2016. They didn't though.

You then said that the IMF actually said it was 15% overvalued. Not the same thing, and not what has happened.

You then changed your tune and claimed that it was DB who said it would fall to $1.15 in 2016. They didn't though.

You have now changed your tune again. This time, with an actual source, saying that the £ would fall to $1.15 in 2017 not. This time it seems they did.

Now you're just making stuff up. When did I ever mention 2016?

Option one you have difficulty reading/comprehending English.

Option two you enjoy deliberately misinterpreting information rather than admit your initial scepticism was misplaced.

Option three You are in fact my ex wife who would claim night was day and continuously argue the toss about it.

 

[scamander]

One of the reasons to vote leave (as argued by a relative as coherently as can be over a few pints of Harveys) was more to do with the increasing susperstate attitude of the EU. Not migration, not border control, not "taking our country back".

I then got thinking, the idea that the outcome of the vote was the only way the situation we were in could change is improbable. It was going to change either way. A vote for leave would be a big slap in the face to the EU and repercussions would follow, but a vote to stay in would hand the EU a large mandate from it's most vocal critic (the UK).

There would be no business as usual had the vote been to stay, it would have likely emboldened the EU on many fronts, perhaps both bad and good. Would the announcement of the EU army (interestingly planned for the day after the vote) change? Well, they had planned an announcement but I've not heard anything until recently when mutterings of it have started to surface. Of course countries are queuing up to veto it but the fact that it was considered in the first place is the issue.

And then there's the Deutsche Bank. I mentioned this a while back, when Greece went down the plughole the attitude was to place responsibility on Greece. But recent draft legislation is aiming to change that, in the instance of a failure my a massive financial institution all EU taxpayers would in effect be asked to pick up the burden. This at a time where the Deutsche Bank is teetering. I'm sure it's coincidental.

We're dealing in the hypothetical, I'm not advocating a strong argument either way but perhaps purely as an exercise ask yourself how things would be if the vote had been the other way. What do you think would be different, better or worse?

 

[El Presidente]

Option three You are in fact my ex wife who would claim night was day and continuously argue the toss about it.

You had one of those too?