Brexit consequences

[al_yrpal]

The £ has fallen, not good for foreign holidays and imports, but makes our exports more competitive.

The FTSE has risen considerably. This is because its heavily dependent on foreign earnings of our biggest businesses, thus with the £ worth less internationally its worth more £s. So any gain in real terms is partly illusory.

British property is probably worth more in £s due to the fall in the £. More price rises in London radiating out?

The vote has caused some disbelief and hostility in some Europeans who feel spurned. As one of my German friends puts it Great Britain is a bit like an inconvenient friend.

Banks have been hammered, if Lloyds maintains its dividend it will be 7%, perhaps a good buy?

EU immigrants and ex pats are worried at what happens next. 3 million here from EU whilst 1.5 million ex pat Brits in the EU.

In terms of monetary values the UK and its exports are now slightly more attractive. Any backlash towards our expats could prove counter productive and with EU imports exceeding our EU imports any backlash there could also prove counterproductive. No wonder Mutti is urging 'Keep Calm and Carry On'

Al

[pwa]

Mervyn King said the fall in the pound was overdue anyway, and Brexit was just a trigger. It makes imports more expensive (fuel and food included) which is bad for the consumer. But imports seeming more expensive is good news for producers at home. And UK exports seem cheaper to foreign buyers, so sales go up.

[mercalia]

well things arent so rosey on the EU side either --

http://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=107313

http://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=107288

[Psamathe]

e.g. Siemens just completed 1st stage of a wind turbine plant (which had 16,000 applications for 500 jobs).

But following Brexit the next £160m development has been halted (they need access to Europe Free Trade area and wont know if that will happen (probably for more than 2 years - so will undoubtedly develop further manufacturing facilities elsewhere in the EU).

And given the number of applications being far far greater than the number of positions, sounds like the area could really do with the additional jobs from the halted development.

And that is going to be happening all over the country as the uncertainty over access to the EU Free Market remains in question and if you don't get access then ...

Ian

[Psamathe]

When Cameron suggested the French might have UK borders moved back into UK he was accused of scaremongering by the Leave campaign.

Nw it seems the French Presidential frontrunner is saying 'We must move the border back to where it belongs' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-freedom-of-movement-eu-referendum-uk-france-border-french-presidential-election-alain-juppe-a7118511.html.

So again we see that things so readily dismissed by the Leave campaign turn out to be a lot better founded than Blobby/Gove/IDS/et al claimed.

Ian

[mercalia]

When Cameron suggested the French might have UK borders moved back into UK he was accused of scaremongering by the Leave campaign.

Nw it seems the French Presidential frontrunner is saying 'We must move the border back to where it belongs' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-freedom-of-movement-eu-referendum-uk-france-border-french-presidential-election-alain-juppe-a7118511.html.

So again we see that things so readily dismissed by the Leave campaign turn out to be a lot better founded than Blobby/Gove/IDS/et al claimed.

Ian

well the idea of camps in South UK IS SCAREMONGERING? we would just send them back on the next ferry as they have no right of assylum as they came from a safe country? we might even put customs on the ships and stop them disembarking? Then the ferry owners would stop them boarding in the first place? So the problem remains French but now with a lot of ill will?

[mjr]

well the idea of camps in South UK IS SCAREMONGERING? we would just send them back on the next ferry as they have no right of assylum as they came from a safe country?

What's that got to do with the right of asylum?

And we might have a lot more asylum applications to consider now because if we exit the EU, then the UK might not be able to use the controversial Dublin III Regulation which says they must apply for asylum in the first EU country they reach, but we would still be a signatory to the Geneva Convention on Refugees and New York Protocol.

we might even put customs on the ships and stop them disembarking? Then the ferry owners would stop them boarding in the first place? So the problem remains French but now with a lot of ill will?

Yeah, that'll work because the ferries are the only way people can cross the channel. It's not like other boats exist or a few people can swim across.

[Psamathe]

When Cameron suggested the French might have UK borders moved back into UK he was accused of scaremongering by the Leave campaign.

Nw it seems the French Presidential frontrunner is saying 'We must move the border back to where it belongs' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-freedom-of-movement-eu-referendum-uk-france-border-french-presidential-election-alain-juppe-a7118511.html.

So again we see that things so readily dismissed by the Leave campaign turn out to be a lot better founded than Blobby/Gove/IDS/et al claimed.

Ian

well the idea of camps in South UK IS SCAREMONGERING? we would just send them back on the next ferry as they have no right of assylum as they came from a safe country? we might even put customs on the ships and stop them disembarking? Then the ferry owners would stop them boarding in the first place? So the problem remains French but now with a lot of ill will?

Cameron was not saying there would be camps in South UK atall. He was saying that the French might not allow the UK border to remain in France (and the French don't like the camps in France and with elections soon and the UK leaving the EU ...).

It gets difficult to access anything when somebody says something sensible (e.g. Cameron says border might not be able to stay in France) and then others exaggerate what was said to make it ludicrous.

If the border were no longer in France it would have to move to the UK. and as soon as a refugee or migrant arrives and they request asylum we have to treat them as asylum seekers whilst their case is examined which means providing for them.As mjr says, if we leave the EU we would likely no longer be part of the system where asylum seekers can be returned to the country they entered the EU. So people whose asylum claims were accepted stay and people whose asylum claims are not accepted stay whilst we try to establish the country they are from, etc.

Cameron made a reasonable statement about risk. Leave dismissed it. It is now looking like Cameron was right and (yet again) Leave were wrong or just not even thinking (doing their usual thing of blindly dismissing anything that was contrary to persuading people to vote Leave).

Oh, and there is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach.

Ian

[Vorpal]

Oh, and there is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach.

But there is in EU law. Will we lose the right to require asylum seekers to apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in? Or give up something else to keep that right?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... referendum

[AlaninWales]

well the idea of camps in South UK IS SCAREMONGERING? we would just send them back on the next ferry as they have no right of assylum as they came from a safe country?

What's that got to do with the right of asylum?

Quite a lot really: In France for example "Some of the criteria for which an asylum application can be rejected include: i) Passage via “safe" third country, ii) Safe Country of Origin (An asylum seeker can be a prior refused asylum if the he or she is a national of a country considered to be "safe" by the French asylum authority OFPRA),[12] iii) Safety Threat (serious threat to the public order), or iv) Fraudulent Application (abuse of the asylum procedure for other reasons)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum so we would not exactly be out of line with our EU-member neighbours if we used the same logic to ship asylum seekers back to the safe country they had just exited. A refugee's rights under UN convention (i.e. as would apply to us having left the EU) include the right not to be forcibly returned, but that only applies to returning to the country where they are unsafe:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" (Article 33(1)).[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Both wiki entries have links to the source documents.

[francovendee]

There is no reason why France would want to continue keeping the refugee camps operating their side of the channel. Whilst I can't see them actively shoving the refugees onto a Brittany ferry they won't be bothered if they find their way into a truck. The mayor of Calais is actively trying to get the camps dismantled and who can blame her as I'm sure she gets complaints everyday from the locals. If they manage to get across there is no chance of them being sent back to France and will end up in the system for years and very likely have a family in the UK so won't end up being deported anyway.
The concern a lot of expats have is over health cover. At present the UK government 'chips in' towards our medical costs, I can see this coming to an end and unless you are working and paying into the French medical system then France will insist on private health insurance. I believe this would be very expensive. The EU migrants in the UK are mostly in work and paying national insurance contributions so would still get health cover.

I heard on Radio 4 yesterday that the cost of food is set for a steep rise due to the amount the UK imports and the falling £. As they say one man's meat etc.

[mjr]

well the idea of camps in South UK IS SCAREMONGERING? we would just send them back on the next ferry as they have no right of assylum as they came from a safe country?

What's that got to do with the right of asylum?

Quite a lot really: In France for example

French law does not apply to the UK (at the moment, at least) and an act doesn't become correct just because someone else does it.

A refugee's rights under UN convention (i.e. as would apply to us having left the EU) include the right not to be forcibly returned, but that only applies to returning to the country where they are unsafe:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" (Article 33(1)).[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Both wiki entries have links to the source documents.

Nothing there exempts us from considering the application, nor does it enable us to dump our duty to refugees on France, does it?

[mercalia]

"Nothing there exempts us from considering the application, nor does it enable us to dump our duty to refugees on France, does it?"

well if France got nasty why not? in letting them come to the UK they would be passing the buck any way rather than sending them to where they came from them selves ( or giving them asylum ). What the regulations also DONT say is that refugees can go asylum shopping as many have been doing, as are the ones at Calais?

Giving asylum is ultimately an act of CHARITY and not some god given human right?

the first safe haven law is ONE we would keep?

[mjr]

"Nothing there exempts us from considering the application, nor does it enable us to dump our duty to refugees on France, does it?"

well if France got nasty why not? in letting them come to the UK they would be passing the buck any way rather than sending them to where they came from them selves ( or giving them asylum ). What the regulations also DONT say is that refugees can go asylum shopping as many have been doing

Asylum shopping? How do you know they have requested asylum from anywhere else?

France wouldn't have "got nasty" - why should France want to help secure the borders of a non-EU UK?

the first safe haven law is ONE we would keep?

Keeping the law seems rather futile if we abandon the EU treaties that enable the UK to send refugees back to previous safe havens. Without treaties, no-one would be obliged to accept them except their countries of nationality, residence or domicile and the anti-refoulement clause means they could only be sent there after determining whether they would be in danger... in other words, considering whether they deserve asylum.

[mercalia]

I think your idea of asylum shopping is perverse - asylum shopping is picking and choosing? going for the best deal, which the EU idea of first safe haven is supposed to stop?

Giving asylum is ultimately an act of CHARITY and not some god given human right?