Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Brexit isn't going to be reversed, I am sure there's zero appetite within the EU to have the UK back as a full member. In a slow and loud process we will grudgingly adapt a Norway-like status over the course of a decade or so.

I don't think that will happen either.

There's been a few articles by people like Tobias Ellwood who's a Tory MP and chair of the Defence Select Committee - or this Labour frontbencher's comments about basically re-joining the single market. But it is very much a really concrete list and reasoning based on the economic benefits followed by general vague hand-waving about free movement. Which is sort of how we got here in the first place - and I'm not sure it's enough. At best it's cakeism ("we'll be able to re-join the single market without free movement"), at worst they just ignore it. I saw one article that was basically 20 paragraphs on why we should re-join the single market followed by a paragraph on free movement. As I say it all seems very much like the way we got here in general.

I think we'll end up roughly where we are on the big picture - out of the customs union and out of the single market - but with deals and more alignment on things like SPS and veterinary stuff - especially if they are important in the context of the protocol and Northern Ireland.

And I think this shift on attitudes to immigration and its salience as an issue is key. It's not flowed through to politics or our press yet, but I think it will - although my general view is that the media in this country is generally a mirror to its readers reflecting back their views and prejudices rather than a force that shapes their opinions.

I can't explain it (though I have some ideas) but I think it clearly has something to do with the referendum - until we can explain it, I think it'd be very risky to go back to pre-Brexit rules:

[Sheilbh]

Now that's an alien perspective to a Canadian. We would have no refugees at all.

It's sort of the government line here - that people should apply for resettlement through a formal scheme administered by the UNHCR for example, rather than travel to the UK (or France) to claim asylum here.

I would have more sympathy for that position if there was any evidence that the UK would take a decent number of refugees through resettlement - and there isn't (historically it was better, it used to be that Canada, the US and the UK were normally the top three). Ideally I'd say the government should set a target of refugees it will resettle every year. But until there's something like that, where the UK does take its fair share through resettlement programs (or a remote asylum system), I don't think we can say that's how people should try to get to the UK because it won't work.

[Barrister]

I don't really have a problem with immigration per se but I can understand the ambivalence toward applying refugee policies to migrants.

If you come through most of Europe to land in the UK you are not fleeing for your life. You may very well had to flee for your life when you left your home and your best bet for economic safety may be in the UK, but its not the same as Syrians pouring over into Turkey or Ukrainians into neighbouring countries.

Now that's an alien perspective to a Canadian. We would have no refugees at all.

I've always felt like we're... hypocrites when it comes to refugees.

Canada takes a Holier-Than-Thou approach to accepting refugees - but only by virtue of the fact that we're thousands of kms away from any country that actually produces refugees.  So we very proudly and loudly take in pretty small numbers of Syrian or Ukrainian refugees.

[Sheilbh]

Separately just on pure politics - I slightly feel that it might be good for Labour if Durham police fine Starmer, or the standards commission find he failed to properly declare gifts, because he would resign. He's done very good stuff at re-setting Labour after Corbyn but I'm not sure he's great at the communication and connecting with voters bit (I still think Nandy would be better) which might need a new leader.

But it is extraordinary the energy and venom of the Labour left's attacks on Starmer right now. From Momentum today:

Momentum 🌹
@PeoplesMomentum
Liar.

From a former Corbyn spokesman:

Matt Zarb-Cousin
@mattzarb
He fucking cheated to win the leadership, he is a liar and fraud and no idiot should vote Labour while this knobhead is leader. Thanks and all the very best

Plus things like the hatchet job biography published by Verso. It's really something. I don't think they'd necessarily love or fall in line behind Starmer's successor (who is likely to be from the centre-left), but I just wonder if there'd be less hostility around them because they weren't the ones who had to undo Corbyn's approach or kick Corbyn out the party. Basically if Starmer just needs to be Kinnock but on a quicker timeline?

Edit: I find it weird because I struggle to have any emotions about Keir Starmer. He's very "meh" for me - so it's just really weird seeing just how much the left really, really hate him.

[Tamas]

As you said earlier Sheilbh, clearly a lot of Labour seems interested in ruling the Labour party, not the country. It is much more comfortable.

[crazy canuck]

I don't really have a problem with immigration per se but I can understand the ambivalence toward applying refugee policies to migrants.

If you come through most of Europe to land in the UK you are not fleeing for your life. You may very well had to flee for your life when you left your home and your best bet for economic safety may be in the UK, but its not the same as Syrians pouring over into Turkey or Ukrainians into neighbouring countries.

Now that's an alien perspective to a Canadian. We would have no refugees at all.

I've always felt like we're... hypocrites when it comes to refugees.

Canada takes a Holier-Than-Thou approach to accepting refugees - but only by virtue of the fact that we're thousands of kms away from any country that actually produces refugees.  So we very proudly and loudly take in pretty small numbers of Syrian or Ukrainian refugees.

That was certainly true under the Conservatives.  We take in more than we did then, but I agree that it should certainly be more.

[Zanza]

@Sheilbh: If the British public got much relaxed on immigration in the last years, what's the big problem with freedom of movement in some future rapprochement? Most of Europe is in demographic decline anyway, so there will not be that many EU migrants.

[The Larch]

@Sheilbh: If the British public got much relaxed on immigration in the last years, what's the big problem with freedom of movement in some future rapprochement? Most of Europe is in demographic decline anyway, so there will not be that many EU migrants.

It also gets to show how the whole immigration debate was scaremongering by Brexiteers rather than a genuine worry.

[Tamas]

@Sheilbh: If the British public got much relaxed on immigration in the last years, what's the big problem with freedom of movement in some future rapprochement? Most of Europe is in demographic decline anyway, so there will not be that many EU migrants.

It also gets to show how the whole immigration debate was scaremongering by Brexiteers rather than a genuine worry.

Shhh.... we don't talk about how Brexit was based on a bunch of rich people conning a lot of ignorant exceptionalist Brits, anymore.

[Sheilbh]

@Sheilbh: If the British public got much relaxed on immigration in the last years, what's the big problem with freedom of movement in some future rapprochement? Most of Europe is in demographic decline anyway, so there will not be that many EU migrants.

Because I don't think we understand yet what caused that shift. It's almost certainly multiple factors but it would be helpful to untangle them so we don't risk shifting opinion in the other way again because I think it's a really positive development.

One theory I think most Remainers had was that public opinion was hostile to immigration because of the numbers. The argument made by others (and I think most Leavers) was that public opinion was hostile to the lack of control in free movement - it was a right, which was the issue not the numbers. I think we need to understand basically if that argument was right and that what mattered wasn't volume, instead it really was about control.

There's always been signs in the polls that it could be right. For example the public basically don't see students as migrants, they're very supportive of migration to work in key sectors (like the NHS, for example) or what they perceive as "skilled workers". Those are the visas that Labour and May (as Home Secretary and PM) cracked down on to offset EU migration; they're also the visas that Johnson has now significantly liberalised. So it may be that people are relaxed about having a relatively liberal criteria to move to the UK (as I say over 50% of jobs would be eligible for a skilled worker - and there's no longer any requirement to show you couldn't hire for that role in the UK or EU) - provided there is a criteria that applies to everyone.

But I think there are other factors. I think before the referendum immigration was talked at at a macro/statistical level. I think after the referendum there was far more media coverage of individual stories which may have shifted opinions. I also think that covid may have shifted opinions by making it clear how much the NHS and care sector relies on migrant workers.

There's been arguments that it's because immigration is receiving less press coverage - and that could be part of it. But there's been a huge up-tick in stories, especially about the small boats, and public opinion hasn't changed. It's a wedge issue, as we see with Rwanda, where basically Tories care about it (but not as much as they did pre-referendum) and Labour/Lib Dems don't - but it's not spread into wider public concern.

It might be part of a general liberalisation of social attitudes about immigration - in the same way as happened around homosexuality. Basically pre-existing trends have just accelerated since the referendum. I mentioned it earlier but there's basically very little difference in current public opinion on taking more refugees from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria or anywhere else - in general people think the UK should do more. On the small boats, over 50% of people basically sympathise with them v aabout 30% whose main focus is deterring them. In general the UK is now one of the countries with the most positive attitudes towards immigration - which was not the case in the early 2010s or the 2000s:


I think it's probably some combo of all of those factors - and probably some others. But I think it's a really interesting and important trend and, given my politics, a really positive one. At some point maybe there'll be that type of agreeing free movement but I think we should only do it if we're pretty sure that the "control" argument wasn't actually key.

It also gets to show how the whole immigration debate was scaremongering by Brexiteers rather than a genuine worry.

I think it shows the opposite. Immigration was a genuine concern - no doubt driven by scaremongering - that Brexiters were able to associate their previously niche cause with. If you look at that chart, the real rise in concerns around immigration was in the first term of New Labour (pre-EU expansion) and I remember that it was a huge issue back then. It was all basically focused on "bogus asylum seekers". Edit: I think it's also backed up in the books Alastair Campbell's released - immigration was the big concern/vulnerability for Labour and it wasn't about Europe because it was before there was that much EU immigration.

It's also what Farage has admitted that people didn't care about Europe, but they cared about immigration. The expansion of the EU and rise in EU migration gave him (and other Eurosceptics) a way to move Europe from being about things the public didn't really care about - Brussels bureaucracy, sovereignty etc - to being about an issue the public did care about: immigration.

[Sheilbh]

Oh - Lord Geidt, the advisor on minister's interests (basically Johnson's ethics advisor - God help him), has resigned. With a very short statement:

With regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post as Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests.

Given his background - army then working for the royals then the defence industry - I doubt we'll get much more from him than that.

No doubt more will come out soon. This would have had more impact a few months ago but is probably still likely going to cause further ructions in the Tories because it's pretty clear that Geidt has stayed on and tried to make that role work, but can't any longer.

Edit: I hadn't realised but apparently he gave evidence to MPs just yesterday and told them he was "clearly frustrated" by Johnson's response to breaching lockdown rules and that Geidt felt his resignation was "always on the agenda" if not able to make that felt. So I wonder if he eventually just got fed up with the whole situation.

[Admiral Yi]

There needs to be a way of making applications and processing claims made in France (though I'm not sure if the French government would be keen on that - and obviously the UK needs to work with them on a solution).

Why does there have to be a way to make an asylum claim for Britain in France? The "safe third state" thing is not part of the UN refugee charter the UK signed. If a refugee wants to go to Britain to claim asylum, he has the right to do so under international law and Britain may not deny that person entrance (or France safe passage).

I did a little bit of reading on the UN Convention but I can't find any mention of this right.

[Zanza]

Article 3 provides for non-discrimination, Article 31 makes it legal to enter by e.g. boat or any other means
Article 26 and 28 mean that refugees should be able to travel

[Richard Hakluyt]

Geidt was extensively mocked by John Crace in the Guardian yesterday :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/lord-geidt-ultimate-establishment-stooge-struggles-maintain-illusion-of-authority

He may have decided to leave because his own name was being brought into disrepute.

[Sheilbh]

Although there may be something up with this - his very short statement and now this very weird on the record government statement:

We are surprised by this decision, given Lord Geidt's commitment to the role, to the Prime Minister, and in his evidence to the House of Commons just yesterday.

This week, the Independent Adviser was asked to provide advice on a commercially sensitive matter in the national interest, which has previously had cross-party support. No decision had been taken pending that advice.

Whilst we are disappointed, we thank Lord Geidt for his public service. We will appoint a new adviser in due course.