To ask what would people judge as Brexit success

[SchrodingersBox]

"For years, all supposedly sensible pundits have told us Brexit spells doom for Britain – now they must eat their words" Editorial in Bild today.

If UK GDP has grown by more than EU GDP by the end of this parliament, due to be Dec 2024 but probably May 2024, would people who are anti Brexit accept that it has been successful? If not what would it take?

We don't need to do it for you. You need to own your shit

Actually I think the onus is on anyone on either side of the argument who wants to have a strong public opinion to provide a measure. OP has suggested one, if you don't like it, suggest a better one, or you lose.

(I think the rule is that it is up to the person making a claim to prove it. If you can't say what would prove you position wrong, then your position is essentially religious rather than scientific, and there's no point anyone engaging with it.)

I will consider Brexit a success if:

1. we end up as a more global nation, with a wider range of people migrating to/from the UK (i.e. not just white Europeans moving to and British moving to Europe)
2. we don't enter a long recession/stagnation period (assuming there's not another financial meltdown unrelated to Brexit)
3. our exports increase (particularly to emerging economies)

Jasjas - I see you're still twisting what people say, who said anything about murdering refugees.

The only ones who benefit from smuggling people into this country are the traffickers themselves. This is what we should be stopping. The majority of people smuggled are economic migrants not refugees fleeing from conflict. They are taken advantage of by these criminals, having to take out loans to pay for their journeys here., and if they don't die in the back of a lorry they are made to work in nail bars etc and paid a pittance and are never free.

The people who come across in the small boats have also paid the traffickers, who cram as many people into a boat as possible and once they have taken their money don't care whether they drown at sea. France just turns a blind eye. We should escort these boats back to France every time and then perhaps these poor people would stop being exploited by ruthless gangs.

Since Brexit is going to be hugely successful, why shouldn't we help those in desperate need?

With regard to the specific issue of channel-crossing dinghies, I think there has to be a policy of intercepting all and returning them immediately to France, not even landing in the UK. It's the only way to stop an increasing number of people setting off in the first place, endangering themselves, and subverting immigration policy.

Emotionally, I dislike harsh immigration enforcement, but rationally, if you are going to have immigration restrictions in a country immigrants are particularly attracted to, you have to enforce them strictly, and be seen to do so, in order to create deterrence. Deterrence is by far the cheapest (and kindest) way of reducing subversion to whatever level you can live with.

(I don't know if automatically returning to France is possible, or if Brexit makes any difference to that. I would think it's what needs to happen, regardless of whether we were in the EU or not.)

I want to be clear that I'm saying what needs to happen, if we want to have immigration controls that keep a lot of would-be migrants out. Whether we should have such immigration controls is a different question.

I'm not sure, but I suspect even France is in favour of dinghy-crossing refugees being returned to France, because that would deter people from travelling to France in the hope of crossing the channel. If you're a country migrants travel through, your best option is for the target country to completely block them. (The second-best, ironically, is for the target country to take them all, so you don't have to deal with those who don't get in.) The worst option is for the target country to have borders just weak enough to give migrants an incentive to try, but strong enough to keep most of the migrants on your side of the border.

What applies to dinghy crossing also applies to Mediterranean crossings. I think the EU needs a comprehensive joint-effort to spot boats as they set out and block them before they even get substantially off-shore. (I don't follow the news on this, so for all I know this may already be happening.)

Re Erasmus,

I do find it amazing the extent that the wealthier will defend their right to be subsidised by taxpayers’ money. No meaningful argument: just, i want it for my children, basically, and don’t want to sacrifice much to get it.

We always end up at the same place, a bunch of mainly well off southerners (and I would bet the vast majority are Londoners) who just cannot see what is wrong with subsidised restaurants (cheap waiting staff), childcare, university education for their children and home renovations.

I suspect Brexit was the wrong way to address the above, but the wilful blindness of the well educated, well travelled middle classes to a lot of other people’s lives is absolutely phenomenal to see. I am totally unsurprised we ended up where we did.

There is another thread rueing the fact we cannot travel to Europe on holiday, right now, when doctors and nurses are on their knees.

It is fascinating that nothing but nirvana, delivered within 5 years, would satisfy some that Brexit was a success. Whatever one’s view, there ought to be some (reasonable) metric that would make one question it.

So, absolutely no meaningful engagement with my solid arguments then. Quelle surprise.

Not,

Pots, kettles.....black!

For me I think it’d be worker’s rights remaining protected as they are now, and no chipping away at environmental legislation. GDP obviously plays a role too.

It’s not really measurable, but the ultimate for me is whether in 10–20 years, if we were offered EU membership, I would want to join. If I genuinely come to feel that life is better out than in, and rejoining would be pointless even if offered on a platter, then I will gladly admit that I was wrong about all this.

Oh and obviously the big one is DS’s opportunities being the same (or better) than the ones I had as a young adult.

Um, I didn’t ignore your argument. I comprehensively dismantled it.

Not,

Good to see that you award your own debating skills an A*- what with your ‘solid’ arguments, and ‘comprehensive dismantling of mine’

Bien fait, etoile d’or!

A brexit success for me would be going back to the good old days!

Fighting the garlic smelling people across the channel

Ah, I see Phoenix has the debating skills of a toddler.

"I can't hear you, la la la la"

@Mamamia456

No i m not, that poster said stop them landing, if you do that they stand a very good chance of drowning
She also said we shouldn't feed them or give them accommodation, so let wet hungry people sleep outside infreezingtemparatures.... so yes murder them.
Escorting them back to France? you mean entering french waters illegally?

You clearly do not understand that once these boats cross into UK waters, they become our responsibility, France has zero obligation to take them back.

In the EU we had the ability to return failed asylum seekers to France under the Dublin convention, we have now left that treaty just as we have left europol too, turning our backs on coop with european authorities to combat people smuggling, we have also stopped navy patrols in the Med too.

Thank you to all those who those who have responded. Some well reasoned arguments on both sides. Apologies for responding in general rather than to individual posters.

As of today pulse fishing has been banned in British waters and VAT has been removed from sanitary products so that is 2 immediate, tangible benefits.

The £350m increase to the NHS has been achieved already, by about 4 fold.

Regarding Turkey, Switzerland and Norway I was talking about relations rather than economics all have deals with the EU but all have difficult relationships. I think the added friction for tariff free trade plus no influence from ECJ etc is better than they have and I suspect all 3 will look to improve their deals.

The Turing Scheme looks much better than Eurasmus. Cheaper for the tax payer but more money going to students, more people eligible, support to learn all over the world not just Europe.

Geography isn't the biggest factor in trade, the gravity model that works on this assumption is out of date. It was the one used by the treasury but I suspect that is because it is the model that would give them the answer they wanted rather than accuracy. Our biggest trade partner is the US.

VAT has been removed from sanitary products so that is 2 immediate, tangible benefits.

Interestingly, Ireland has had no vat on sanitary products for ages.

My children's qualifications recognised in the EU.

Freedom of movement restored.

And Erasmus restored. Much better as it is a scheme used by majority of Europe.

And workers rights & environmental / safety standards protected.

We always end up at the same place, a bunch of mainly well off southerners (and I would bet the vast majority are Londoners)

No. Live in South West Brexit voting territory. Erasmus is good for poor students.

Pulse fishing had already been banned by France and Belgium in 2019.
Germany scrapped tampon tax last year. So no, not benefits of Brexit!

"The £350m increase to the NHS has been achieved already, by about 4 fold."
Lol...yeah ok. Thought you might be a serious poster for a second there, but clearly not! Bye.

@SnackSizeRaisin

GDP irrelevant. Success for our country would be reduced inequality and poverty, better health and education, better environmental protection, innovative and forward thinking changes for example greener house building, greener transport. Sustainable farming. Reforms to housing to make tenants secure to prevent spiralling house prices. Success would be driving into a big city and not seeing derelict buildings, slum like housing and beggars everywhere. I also value freedom of movement highly but would be willing to trade it for the above. I am a remained but if the above results within the next 10 years I will readily admit I was completely wrong! Increased GDP is a red herring. It just means more money for a very few who are rich already, and does not affect the lives of 99.9% of people in this country.

Totally agree. GDP is not a good measure of quality of life and health in the majority of people - which is surely what we are aiming for?

It is definitely up to those who want Brexit to defend it, and to set out the criteria by which its success should be measured. And to say what will happen if it is proven to be a failure -- I note the deafening silence on this front.

The successes I want to see are not necessarily 'measurable' in such a blunt sense, such as cultural engagement with Europe and being an outward-looking, rather an insular nation, and being a country which feels European.