Brexit Mega Thread 16 – Who's Next?

[LouiseCollins28]

We are approaching the 6th anniversary of Brexit, or I suppose the 5th, if you count the period of transition as "in."

Since then, the world has endured Covid-19, seen war in Ukraine and many other things. Brexit has had reduced salience in the minds of many people recently.

When digesting the latest setbacks to befall the elite who govern our islands, a phrase I keep returning to, is “OK, so now do you get it?”

Brexit is undoubtedly the biggest “OK, so now do you get it?” moment directed at our leaders in my life. It’s surely the largest since 1979, since the Labour victory of 1945? or even since the advent of universal suffrage?

The U.K. local elections in 2026, and subsequent national ones, could see a big increase in support for the Green Party and Reform U.K. Two parties with more different attitudes to European integration could scarcely be found, so Brexit’s salience in the U.K. may rise again soon
.
There are many electoral contests in progress or coming across Europe too (the Netherlands and France, for example) which will be worth paying attention to. Maybe the next questions we will face are less about "what next?" and more about "who's next?"

Relations between mainland Europe and the UK remain a worthy topic for discussion, whoever leads the nations of Europe, or leads the E.U. itself.

@Talkinpeace

Why not give the field harvesting jobs to students? They are young, have a long break in the summer and there are approximately 2 million of them.

@LouiseCollins28

Oh yeah but that's possibly slightly more expensive and it benefits British people, not foreigners, so yeah screw that then, let's not bother.

I agree. UK and Western Europe obsession with cheap labours does not help.

I am completely in favour of training our own. But that needs to happen without employers demanding massive financial support. More investment in the workforce, less prioritising shareholders. Has Brexit brought that about? Nope.

And of course training our own also means completely changing our education system, so that we aren't forcing endless analysis of Macbeth down the throats of young people who should be learning skilled trades and the peripherals needed to work in them. It would mean selection, and it would mean investing in and properly valuing vocational education. We could look at what the Dutch have done about NEETS. But none of that good stuff benefits the very rich who are taking the people in the UK for utter mugs.

Your precious Brexit gave those folk more money and more power.

The UK currently has approx 1 million unemployed young people aged 18-24.

All of them are young, the vast majority will be physically fit and able bodied. Almost any of them can move around the country if they are appropriately incentivised to do so (or if appropriate disincentives are applied dissuade those young people from remaining NEET)

Why is the government not putting these people to work?

Your argument about educational changes is an excellent one @pointythings 👏

The state education system has the business end of 11 years (maybe 13 now!) to get a young person ready for the world of work (and life more generally.) Sadly, it is failing to do that on too many occasions.

It is any wonder employers want support if the school-leavers they are expected to take into their firms are not ready to work? Lordy, make the young people share holders then, give them a personal (albiet probably v. small) stake in the success of the firms they are joining.

Ah, work houses. That's something Rees-Mogg would find "uplifting" I'm sure...

The point is though that in order to equip our young people in that way, we need to invest. It will, in the medium term, cost a great deal of money. It did in the Netherlands, and they already had a well.funded, well structured selective system where vocational learning was genuinely valued. The UK has a 'what about the shareholder?' system. You're looking at a massive cultural change. People are going to scream that it's socialism.

And let's not forget that employers have already trousered huge subsidies in the form of UC/ working tax credits as was. Pay multiples are ridiculous. Employers don't need more support. They need to take responsibility for their staff. Both changes need to happen in tandem.

Brexit promised higher wages but when Labour raised the minimum wage , people esp brexiteers were angry.

So what incentives are you proposing @LouiseCollins28 ?

The policy of 50% of people should attend University was a mistake. The UK did not have enough jobs that needed that level of education. Just a sly way of reducing the unemployment numbers.

Many graduates are doing jobs they could have done if they had left school at 16. They are saddled with huge debts. My daughter’s debt is about £80K and sons is estimated to be £100K when he completes his degree.

“Your wages will rise... weekly food shops will get cheaper… You and your family will benefit from a resurgent economy... Politicians both local and national will become more accountable..."

This was how Brexit was sold ten years ago today

The policy of 50% of people should attend University was a mistake.

I suspect that many of us would agree with this. This was Blair's doing. There was also a very good report about secondary education, the Tomlinson report, which placed a lot of emphasis on vocational education. Blair put the kybosh on that, not wanting to deviate from the 'gold standard' of A levels.

There also used to be other routes to professional qualifications e.g. solicitors taking articles, as well as a variety of engineering apprenticeships.

The policy of 50% of people should attend University was a mistake.

It absolutely was. Blair's 'education, education, education' should have shifted focus to supporting high quality vocational education. I don't approve of the UK grammar school system because it misses out real talent in favour of selection by wealth, but there are ways of managing a selective education system that works by valuing talent in all its forms.

@Peregrina
@pointythings

Gosh we agree on something😆👍

I know. I'm shocked.

I know. I'm shocked.

Me too!

I don't approve of the UK grammar school system because it misses out real talent in favour of selection by wealth, but there are ways of managing a selective education system that works by valuing talent in all its forms.

I largely agree, but I think if post war, we had introduced a basic comprehensive system for children up to 14/15 where all had the chance of a good spread of subjects, selection post 15 would have been more acceptable. I think we would be in a better place now if that had happened.

10/11 is too young to short out the sheep and the goats and although the grammar system gave some working class children a chance, it discriminated against a whole lot more.

Denis Skinner the ex politician was a clever man. He passed the 11+ or scholarship as it was then called, but he said he was lucky - wartime meant that they had to relax the uniform rules to only require a house tie and cap. Otherwise the cost of a grammar school uniform from an expensive outfitter would have prevented him from taking up his place.

@Peregrina the Dutch system starts with two or three 'bridge' years in which everyone gets a broad general education, even if they are in a vocational school. There is flexibility to move between school types, so if someone is selected into a vocational pathway but blossoms academically and wants to change, they have that option. Specialist selection is at 14/15 - and I agree, 10 and 11 is way to early.

I took and passed the 11+ during my year in the UK; my parents went for it because they were considering making the move permanent. My dad would have had a permanent post at the University of York, doing research and supporting Ph.D. students. They decided against it in the end, but I would have gone to grammar school (with a very long commute every day!).
I would probably have done well, but I'm glad my parents went back to the Netherlands instead. I enjoyed the broad curriculum before making my final choices at 15.

@DuncinToffee

“Your wages will rise... weekly food shops will get cheaper… You and your family will benefit from a resurgent economy... Politicians both local and national will become more accountable..."

As per the trades people who have posted on MN, they are earning more since Brexit.

To help people with the cost of living, Rachel Reeves has recently reduced tariffs on 100 supermarket items which are imported. This couldn’t have been done if the UK was a member of the EU.

Making the assumption that everyone in the UK needs supermarket products, this is a benefit to the entire population.

The UK services economy has grown significantly since Brexit. This represents over 80% of both employment and GDP.

I am not a great believer of polls, but YouGov is saying 3 out of 10 think they would be better off in the UK rejoined the EU. Not very convincing.

Also, UK has Reform at the top of the pile for voting intentions.

Maybe look at what Remain said 10 years ago and compare to what has actually happened since.

Remain said that Brexit would damage the UK and that is what happened.

Just because worst case scenarios didn't happen doesn't mean they were wrong.

Private Eye

Certainly didn't get that impression. I'm not remotely angry that the minimum wage was raised, it should be.

I suspect people were not very happy that nothing concurrent was done to improve the lot of those earning above the minimum, such as reintroducing rises in the personal allowance. That's mostly because raising the wages at the bottom while leaving everyone else to hang allows the government to claim that they have "lifted families out of poverty" because the line moves the right way. The only way for a socialist government to ensure no family is in relative poverty is to make everyone dirt poor so there's no relative line to benchmark against.

The 2 Child benefit cap going, that I was angry about.

If you want people to do a job, pay them properly. Oh and tell people they can't take out of the system via tax-credits etc until they've paid a certain amount of income tax/NI, I suggest perhaps 5 years worth. If the adult in question is disabled to the point they can't work at all then that gets v. unfair, but that's what your lovely. neighbourhood work capability assessors are for.

Basically, no-one gets a free lunch. There, economic policy in one sentence.

Pay them properly, I agree with that.

Brexit made everything more expensive.

@DuncinToffee

Remain said that Brexit would damage the UK and that is what happened.

So, why did 498 MPs vote to leave the EU? Aren’t they supposed to be the clever ones with access to everything?

Some people will be worse off, but I am not convinced it’s the majority based in the outcomes of the general elections held since MPs triggered article 50.

I am not a great believer in polls, but you seem to like/trust them. YouGov shows Reform at the top of the voting intention. Whilst, I don’t think Reform will win the next general election, if they do it’s safe to say they will not promote a rejoin.

Also, from YouGov, 3 in10 think they would be better off if UK rejoined. Hardly a high figure.

That leaves 7 in 10 who think they won’t be better off doesn’t it?

@LouiseCollins28

Basically, no-one gets a free lunch. There, economic policy in one sentence.

I agree. Many bang on about their rights, but what about their duties?