Unintended consequences of brexit

If they really wanted shot of immigrants born in other EU countries, they could have targeted Gisela Stuart, enthusiastic brexiteer, instead of people like Inga Lockington.

varian I think you will find that TM was referring to illegal immigrants and the likes of Abu Hamza who was 'taking the P'.

And I think that as Home Secretary Theresa May was the person who directed that there should be a "hostile environment" towards immigrants.

It is now 12 years since John Reid declared his immigration service at the Home Office 'not fit for purpose'. It had been so for years and sadly, it would appear still to be so.

A former mayor who's lived in the UK for 40 years has been denied citizenship by the Home Office. Inga Lockington, who was a Liberal Democrat councillor for 19 years and in 2007 was the mayor of Ipswich, moved to the UK from Denmark in 1979. In the same year, she married her husband Tim and her passport was stamped with 'indefinite leave to remain'. She has lived here since she first arrived.

But a Home Office blunder has led to Inga being denied citizenship.Following the EU Referendum, Inga decided to apply for the new status, partly prompted by changes to Danish law that mean she won't lose her citizenship in her native country. Her application was not granted and the Home Office said it "cannot be satisfied" that she has been a permanent resident of the UK. The Home Office letter read: "As you have not provided a document certifying permanent residence or a permanent residence card issued by the Home Office, we cannot be satisfied that you were permanently resident in the United Kingdom from the date of your application for naturalisation and it has been refused."

Inga spent £1,282 applying for citizenship and has had just £80 refunded. "I don’t want special treatment – but I do think that EU citizens should be treated fairly," she said. Inga moved to Ipswich in the mid-1990s and was put on the electoral role. She was given the right to love in local elections.In 1999, she was elected a Lib Dem councillors on Ipswich Council for the St Margarets ward, a seat she has held ever since. Two years later she was elected to Suffolk County Council, where she still sits.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/anger-former-mayor-whos-lived-12584706

I have just listened to Inga interviewed on radio 4. She made the point that when she married a British doctor, they decided to make their life in the UK because he wanted to spend his career working in the NHS, which he has done.

She is concerned that other EU citizens in her position may not be able to afford the huge cost of establishing their right to remain after brexit.

I can remember The Express having an "anti-common market" campaign in the 1960s. The EU has never suited the agenda of the ultra rich who own most of the media.

In the 1975 Referendum, all the main political parties supported Remain, as did all the media with the exception of the Communist 'Daily Worker'.

Wiki reckons that the 'Daily Express', owned by Lord Beaverbrook' was the only major newspaper against our entry in the 'sixties when it was losing out against television and Murdoch' papers.

In 2016, I think 'The Sun' is classified as Leave and 'The Times' as Remain. Not sure what this says about Murdoch's view of the EU but, as a big businessman, I would have guessed, he would have seen its merits.

I agree that statistics can be misleading; and we can probably agree that they often appear in headlines because somebody has an axe to grind.

Economic statistics are better described as estimates; and forecasts should be treated with a greater degree of scepticism, whether they support or deny our case.

Reports of Carney's 'comment' prompted me to look at figures from the Office of National Statistics [ONS] on real disposable household income in the UK. In July 2017, ONS released its preliminary estimate for financial year 2016/17 at £27,200. This was up 1.8% from a revised estimate of £26,720 for 2015/16. The original estimate for 2015/16 (released in August 2016) was £26,400, a cool £320 lower than estimated a year later. Bearing in mind that the original lower estimate was made after the reference period had ended, it indicates how little faith we can have in recent data, let alone forecasts years ahead built on that wobbly recent data.

Now, I must get back to the real world!

I think the question asked should be different - not how many people are employed but how many of the employed are being paid sufficiently not to need to claim benefits. The majority of ‘normal’ jobs are only paying minimum wage - called the living wage but obviously not that as most people need benefits as well.
In many places in the U.K. wages have actually been going down for a good number of years and people are often expected to do more for their money - more responsibility and often longer hours - this of course is possible when quoting an annual salary.
Nothing like as good as the statistics sound.

It may not be on the side of a bus but predictably, it is all over the front page of the London Evening Standard. [Editor: George Osborne].

If I read the quote of Carney's comment correctly, he says household incomes are £900 lower than the Bank of England had forecast. On the face of it, it is not good news although not a great surprise given that we were promised doom. But, a couple of questions : is it £900 per annum or £900 since Brexit? And how accurate are the Bank's forecasts normally? By the way, I have read that unemployment levels fell much more after Brexit than the Bank had forecast. If true, could some of this been because of Brexit and the fall in sterling that followed?

The UK grew faster than Germany for 4 years before Brexit so maybe Germany and the Eurozone were due a bounce.

I agree that the Brexit process is a mess; but Parliament and the government [former Chancellor of the Exchequer: George Osborne] could have and should have prepared better for either outcome. Thankfully, despite being a Remainer, Mark Carney did his job and prepared for a Leave vote.

Brexit is costing about £300 m a week sound like it should be on the side of a bus. All the extra civil servants, ministers, lawyers, admin workers etc not to mention private jets ? I have a friend who is a lawyer and has come of out early retirement to work on Brexit, she says everyone working on it knows it is a mess but it’s very lucrative for them!

varian but households have progressively been getting 'poorer' since the 2008 crash and austerity was introduced. Well before the Brexit vote

The Brexit vote has left households £900 worse off, Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said. The vote to leave the European Union had lowered growth by "up to 2%", he told MPs on Tuesday. However, there could be a "sharp pick-up" in business investment when a Brexit agreement is struck, he said.

Meanwhile, new figures showed the government finances have continued to improve, potentially giving the Chancellor more Budget spending power. Giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, Mr Carney said: "Real household incomes are about £900 lower than we forecast in 2016. The question is why and what drove that difference. Some of it is ascribed to Brexit."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44207677

£900 per year is a lot of money to many people who would never have voted to become poorer.

Thanks Varian.

Mark Zuckerberg is appearing at the European Parliament now. To follow go to-

www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2018/may/22/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-appears-before-european-parliament-live-updates

or

edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/zuckerberg-testimony-european-parliament/

Mark Zuckerberg is having a meeting, a private behind closed doors meeting, although he has agreed for it to be streamed. He is avoiding giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee as explained in previous posts.

No matter which way up one looks at it, clearly there is something that he does not want to give evidence about, which he can dodge in a private meeting in Europe, but not under the scrutiny of our Parliamentary system.

I don't think it is a simple as he is a 'very busy man'. Nor do I believe it to be anything at all to do with his "respect" for the EU.

Mark Zuckenberg is showing the European Parliament the respect he also showed the US Congress, by turning up in person to answer questions.

He is a busy man and will not always turn up to unimportant meetings. He clearly does not rate UK Parliamentary committees as worthy of his attendance. He is looking to the future and has apparently written off brexit Britain as a minor player of little importance.

Varian of course I do not agree with your statement "UK is no longer a power to be reckoned with, whereas the EU is." . The article is clear about the powers of the British Parliamentary committee system.

Varian that is correct. It is, as I said in the previous post, a Parliamentary enquiry is not a "meeting", it is much more serious than that. Whilst he has been asked politely to give evidence it can be enforced attendance. As the article said, next time Mark Zuckerberg touches British soil it is likely that he will be arrested.

www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/3031493/mps-to-compel-mark-zuckerberg-give-evidence-to-parliamentary-committee-investigating-fake-news

Our Parliament has asked Mark Zuckerberg to appear numerous times, but he declined and sent an employee because the UK is no longer a power to be reckoned with, whereas the EU is.

Mark Zuckerberg.

"The Facebook CEO had previously agreed only to a private meeting with representatives at the European Parliament, who want to question him about privacy and data-sharing on the platform."
www.itpro.co.uk/data-protection/31144/mark-zuckerberg-agrees-to-public-questioning-by-european-parliament

Mark Zuckerberg will be having a "private meeting" behind closed doors and has just recently agreed to that "meeting" being web streamed. This closed private meeting will be Today 4.45 UK time.

A Parliamentary committee is more than a private meeting. It is a scrutiny with witnesses and evidence as required. The implications are greater for Mr Zuckerberg from giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee than from a "private meeting" with the EU. This is I imagine why he has more reluctance to appear.

"MPs are threatening Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg with a formal summons in a bid to compel him to appear before the Parliamentary Culture, Digital, Media and Sport Select Committee and to give evidence in its investigation into 'fake news'.
The threat has been made in a letter to Zuckerberg that, while unenforcable outside the UK, would result in his arrest should he travel via London Heathrow or any UK territory.
"While Mr Zuckerberg does not normally come under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament, he will do so the next time he enters the country. We hope that he will respond positively to our request, but if not the Committee will resolve to issue a formal summons for him to appear hen he is next in the UK," the letter warns, adding that the Committee expects the grilling to take place before 24 May.
The letter is addressed to Rebecca Stimson, head of public policy at Facebook UK, and signed by Damian Collins MP, Chairman of the Committee.
Collins added that he was unsatisfied by the responses provided by its chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer, who represented the social media company in parliament on Monday, and provided the 39 questions that the Committee would like Zuckerberg to answer."

www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/3031493/mps-to-compel-mark-zuckerberg-give-evidence-to-parliamentary-committee-investigating-fake-news

Mark Zuckerberg will appear publicly before the European parliament on Tuesday, ending a terse standoff with the institution, but further inflaming tensions with the House of Commons, which has repeatedly requested an appearance from the Facebook founder.

The president of the European parliament, Antonio Tajani, announced on Monday morning that Zuckerberg’s appearance would be publicly livestreamed, following criticism that the Facebook chief executive had initially managed to persuade the body to meet him behind closed doors.

“I have personally discussed with Facebook CEO Mr Zuckerberg the possibility of webstreaming meeting with him,” Tajani tweeted. “I am glad to announce that he has accepted this new request. Great news for EU citizens.I thank him for the respect shown towards EP.”

www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/22/european-parliament-livestream-mark-zuckerberg-appearance-facebook

Surely this is yet another demonstration of the political clout of the EU, in stark contrast to the diminished status of the UK because of the nonsensical brexit?

I can remember The Express having an "anti-common market" campaign in the 1960s. The EU has never suited the agenda of the ultra rich who own most of the media.

Trump hates the EU which he fears could compete with the USA as an important trading block, even a world power.

Putin, and other interested parties seem to have used various mathods to help Trump get elected and influence the brexit vote - because that suits his purpose, to de-stabilise the West.

And the compliant brexiters talk about the "will of the people"! Ask yourselves "who exactly might gain an advantage from brexit?"

But the manipulation by the press had been going on ever since we joined to EU. Boris managed to inflame the misinformation with stories of bent bananas and cucumbers thinking it was a huge joke until he eventually lost his job.
When the last referendum came along the owners of some of the newspapers had a lot to gain by U.K. leaving the EU which is why they had such headlines etc. Some people only read the headlines at the garage and not the whole article. One of the next things the EU is doing is going after the tax havens - this does not suit the newspaper owners at all.

MaizieD In response to your media influence post's.

This was posted earlier but just a reminder that YouGov reported on the pre disposition of both leave and remain voters who take certain newspapers prior to the Brexit campaign. Of course media is much more than newspapers these days.

"YouGov reports over 70% of Sun, Express and Mail readers supported ‘Brexit’ in March 2016 before their papers formally endorsed one side while 91% of Guardian readers and 62% of Times readers were ‘remain’ supporters before the campaign officially started. Given the fragile state of news finances, it would be a bold editor who would go against the views of their readers".
irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/28759/1/PubSub6174_Henn.pdf

In understanding how the media influenced the referendum result it is important to recognise that before the campaign even began the large parts of the public had been primed by the media to be Eurosceptic.

This is a massive A - Z index of euro myths perpetrated mostly by the UK press since the 1990s. The British were well primed by media lies years before the vote even happened

blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

A quick search will find many analyses of the role of the media, such as this one:

blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/05/16/acrimonious-and-divisive-the-role-the-media-played-in-brexit/

This is interesting, for those who deny that the media didn't influence them: During the campaign itself, most national print circulations and online readership rose. It certainly did influence some people...