Brexit mega thread part 15a - looking forwards

[Talkinpeace]

Just rebooting the most recent thread

At the moment the UKs issues are rather over shadowed by events elsewhere
but maybe that is a good thing.

The German election on Sunday is worth watching
Right wing European politicians pulling out of CPAC speeches because they realise its not a good look
Farage floundering to stay relevant

and the possibility of the return of free movement for our kids if not us

Relations between mainland Europe and the UK remain a worthy topic for discussion

Not entirely sure of its long term benefit though. What it surely does is entrench the hardest form of Brexit (which is what we have) for the foreseeable future and really limit the scope of any EU-UK agreement. I'm thinking especially of the food part of it- let's not forget that the Trump administration has just culled the FDA (Food and Drugs Administration) which will likely lower the US food standards even more. I cannot understand why Labour would sign up for that. I thought our farmers were already being shafted by the Australian deal - my gut feeling is that it is not going to help them, but happy to hear a perspective from an actual farmer if we have one on this thread.

From the actual trade deal agreement

The United Kingdom and the United States affirm that imported food and agricultural goods must comply with the importing country’s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards and other mutually agreed standards."

The USA will have to comply with UK standards

No tax for people who earn below £20K
Yes, not a bad policy, easily achieved by increasing the Personal allowance.

No inheritance tax
Precious few people pay this, so it won't affect the low paid in the slightest. The wealthy know how to get round it.

The 2019-2024 Johnson/Truss/Sunak government that withdrew us from the EU wasn't 'a Brexit supporting government'?

I am quite sure I am not the only person who is utterly fed up with these type of excuses.

There is a still a lot of land held in trusts, not on and unlikely to appear anytime soon on the Land registry.

That's where the uber-rich win out.

Indeed.

It's all starting to sound like 'jam tomorrow'.

Or the thought process of a cult.

The 2019-2024 Johnson/Truss/Sunak government that withdrew us from the EU wasn't 'a Brexit supporting government'?

Brexit was passed into UK law on 29 March 2017 by 498 MPs.

The Conservative Party that won in 2019 said they would get Brexit done, but they did not. Hence the drubbing they received in the 2024 general election.

Even Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg acknowledged that the Conservatives deserved to lose the election as they had failed to control immigration.

Since Labour took over in July 2024, immigration is even more out of control. Youth mobility is being reviewed by Labour even through the previous Conservative government rejected as it was effectively a return to free movement.

Turn the clock forward to 1 May 2025 and what happened? Reform topping polls and making large gains in local elections.

Watch Question Time last night and see one of the audience making the comment:

We have seen both conservatives and Labour fail for decades, so it’s time for a change and that’s why I voted Reform.

@Peregrina

Inheritance tax is paid on estates worth more the £325K. Estate includes everything; such as property and its contents, savings and pensions.

£325K might sound substantial, but when it includes property it is soon passed. UK average house is £270K.

London is £536K and South East is £386. Those two regions represent almost a third of the population.

Due to property booms in the past, it’s possible that people may only have modest income, but are asset rich. They will be the biggest losers.

The governor of the Bank of England has said the UK now needs to "rebuild" its trade relationship with the European Union and do "everything we can" to improve long-term trade, after Thursday's US deal.

Andrew Bailey told the BBC that as a public official he did not take a view on Brexit, but that reversing the post-Brexit hit to UK-EU trade would be "beneficial".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7zr4gnknxo

The Conservative Party that won in 2019 said they would get Brexit done, but they did not. Hence the drubbing they received in the 2024 general election.

The did entirely get Brexit done. That is why they got a drubbing in the GE (combined with Truss, and lying continuously while syphoning our money off to their mates).

Even Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg acknowledged that the Conservatives deserved to lose the election as they had failed to control immigration.

But Brexit wasn't about immigration, supposedly? And Brexit is what made immigration immeasurably worse, as we could no longer rely on young Europeans coming over for a few years and then returning, and instead had to allow families from further afield. Not to mention that we could no longer send asylum seekers back to France...

@GlobeTrotter2000
With the greatest of respect
sod off
your posts are a chat GPT regurgitated misinterpretations of the past

tell us about nest week or GO AWAY

Brexit was done at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

All you have are lame excuses.

Globetrotter2000

Nice bit and cut and paste there of something you know little about.

You may not know that I live in the south of England and know a sight more about house prices here than you do. I'll grant that with house prices as they are in the south of England, more people will be potentially liable.

Does it not occur to you that I might have been an executor and had to wind up an estate so might actually have to look into the matter of IHT? There is a spousal exemption; charitable gifts can reduce your liability - just for starters. The wealthy (and those of relatively modest means, asset rich but cash poor) can avoid IHT.

But basically you are just spouting off.

Re

UK comes in fifth for immigration and asylum claims compared to:

1st Germany
2nd France
3rd Italy
4th Spain

So, the suggestion that Brexit is the sole reason why immigration has increased in the UK is incorrect.

Hong Kong, people from the Ukraine and a backlog of international students who were prevented from coming to the UK during COVID have added to the surge seen in recent years

Brexit was to control immigration to ensure that those who entered were of some value to the UK, not necessarily to reduce the numbers. This was confirmed by Professor Anand on BBC QT episode 23 June 2023.

Also, birth rate in UK is declining, but at the same time the population is ageing. It’s estimated that for every elderly person in the UK there are only three people working. Previously there were approximately twenty people working for every elderly person.

So, UK needs to have suitable persons entering to cater for future needs. The key word is suitable. ie immigration needs to be controlled.

Posters conveniently choose to interpret as follows:

Immigration control = reduced numbers + racism.

@Peregrina

There are many legitimate ways to reduce exposure to IHT that are available such as:

Spousal transfer. I remember Philip Green transferred 1.2 billion to his wife. Sunak did something similar.

Annual gift of £3K to as many people as you like. So, if you trust your children, give it to them and can slowly drip it back in cash.

My view is that IHT is double taxation as assets are accrued from income that has already been taxed

Brexit was to control immigration to ensure that those who entered were of some value to the UK, not necessarily to reduce the numbers. This was confirmed by Professor Anand on BBC QT episode 23 June 2023.

Ah, I see. The sole arbiter of Brexit is Professor Anand on BBC QT.

But if Brexit was to control immigration, as you claim, it has been a staggeringly monumental failure.

In fact, it has been a staggeringly monumental failure on every single count.

About time we rejoined.

Spousal transfer. I remember Philip Green transferred 1.2 billion to his wife. Sunak did something similar.
Annual gift of £3K to as many people as you like. So, if you trust your children, give it to them and can slowly drip it back in cash.

Quite - IHT is avoided by the wealthy. Poor people won't pay it.

@MaybeNotBob

Ah, I see. The sole arbiter of Brexit is Professor Anand on BBC QT

No. Similar comments on QT made by;

Rory Stewart
Alastair Campbell and Nigel Farage 5 December 2024

But if Brexit was to control immigration, as you claim, it has been a staggeringly monumental failure.

Yes, both legal and illegal. Illegals will always find a way to enter and some UK employers are willing to take advantage and pay them cash hand and below minimum wages

In fact, it has been a staggeringly monumental failure on every single count.

Exporters of goods may have that view. Service providers not so as they have boomed.

I have spent more time in the EU since 2020 than in the previous 32 years since 1988.

About time we rejoined.

Voters were given the opportunity to revoke Article 50 in the 2019 General Election, but chose not to. Only those who voted remain in 2016, but did not vote for the Liberal Democrat’s can explain why.

Trade deals that UK has made with other countries since Brexit may not be acceptable to the EU?

Voters were given the opportunity to revoke Article 50 in the 2019 General Election, but chose not to.

You keep repeating this - it is patently not true.

Voters were given the opportunity to vote for a government. Brexit was not mentioned on the ballot papers.

Trade deals that UK has made with other countries since Brexit may not be acceptable to the EU?

But they don't make up for even 1% of the trade that we lost. And they may be acceptable.

@Peregrina

Quite - IHT is avoided by the wealthy. Poor people won't pay it.

So, why bother at all trying to collect? Even Tony Blair said chasing the rich won’t achieve anything as it easy for them to relocate.

In 2024, almost 11,000 millionaires left the UK which included 12 billionaires and 80 centi millionaires.

This where the Lib Democrat’s will fail.

Previous statement:

No inheritance tax
Are good for those at the lower end of the income scale.

Make up your mind Globetrotter.

@MaybeNotBob

Voters were given the opportunity to vote for a government. Brexit was not mentioned on the ballot papers

It was in the party manifestos. Watch the 5 September 2019 episode of BBC question time. The panel was made up of

Layla Moran - Liberal Democrat’s
Tim Ryce - Brexit party, now called Reform
Emily Thornberry - Labour
Kwasi Kwartang - Conservative
Ian Blackford - SNP

A member of the audience stated that a general election would be a people’s vote on Brexit as option whether or not Brexit will happen is on the table. The panel response was

Layla - Our policy is to revoke Article 50
Tim Ryce - Our Policy is to leave the EU
Emily - A referendum with option to remain
Kwasi - Our policy is to leave
Ian - Scotland voted 62% to remain

If people vote without looking at the manifestos on offer, that’s their entitlement, but don’t say the option to revoke was not on the table.

Ah, so as you're so often pointing out with fallacies - you're now stating that everybody in the country voted only on Brexit.

You really are coming across as an absolute imbecile...

@MaybeNotBob

you're now stating that everybody in the country voted only on Brexit.

No. Pointing out that the opportunity to revoke Article 50 was put on the table by the Liberal Democrat’s in the 2019 general election, but they didn’t win.

Another referendum, with the option to remain, was Labour position on Brexit, but they didn’t win either.