Engineer readers believe that trade should take priority over immigration in Brexit negotiations
Our polls concerning Britain’s impending exit from the European Union always attract a strong response, and last week’s polls no exception: 660 readers responded over the course of the week. And one option attracted a clear majority of responses, with 52 per cent saying that trade should take priority in our talks with our soon-to-be former EU partners. The next largest group, 19 per cent, said that immigration controls should be the primary concern of negotiators. Only slightly fewer, 15 per cent, agreed with the statement from 10 Downing Street that negotiations would not be a zero sum game, and 14 per cent declined to pick an option. With Prime Minister Theresa May making her long-awaited speech on Brexit priorities later today, we don’t have long to wait to see how the negotiations might map out.
Please continue to let us know your opinions on this topic.
The government need a negotiating partner. Ireland are seriously concerned about the effects of BREXIT and a failure to conclude trade negotiations within two years. As Ireland are still in the EU we should lean on them for support to accelerate trade talks. We should also look to lean on the European economies that have suffered, or are about to suffer, financially since the crash.
Maybe then trade talks with the UK would become a priority for the unelected EU officials.
Britain voted to leave the EU and that means leaving all of the EU, in which case your questions are not relevant as priorities do not need to be discussed.
Given that virtually everyone on the Leave side said that access to the single market would be maintained, I don’t think it’s correct to say that Britain voted to leave the single market. The ambiguity of the referendum question, combined with the lack of planning for a Leave result, are some of the issues we’re seeking to address with the poll.
Whatever the decision of ‘the People’ it is not for the UK Govt. to have the deal they want. A deal is achieved through compromise on both sides, so whatever the UK wants can only be granted by the remaining 27 partners.
If the UK wanted to keep one or more of the 4 Pillars, then ‘the People’ shouldn’t have voted to leave. It was not within the power of the Brexiteers to promise anything because they were not the Govt. , but ‘ the People ‘ fell for it and we are left with an unpredictable mess.
We are left with an unpredictable opportunity. The alternative is a very predictable unaccountable more Europe, with all of its increasing faults.
So one assumes that you would be happy to leave without trade deals, and potential for tariffs to be imposed for trading with the EU? That’s nonsense, and rather unlikely thankfully given we import more than we export to the EU. They have more to loose than us. But for companies struggling with the exchange rate, what we cant tolerate is a hard BREXIT. Our company imports many of the components from EU + China because they are no longer made in the UK, so the exchange rate is hurting real bad. Please don’t make it worse with nonsense about no trade deals!!
Right up until the last day I was a ‘remainer’ judging that at least being in we might be able to effect change. The threats from Osbourne about the consequences of not seeing it his way made me look at it differently. I believe in Britain as a nation. I am happy to be part of Europe but not the political union that has been running out of control for some time now. If it had kept to its founding principles the EU could have worked for everyone. As for immigration we as a nation have had this for centuries and it did not prevent us getting where we are on the world stage punching well above our weight. We do need moderation in some aspects but overall I see more positives than negatives. I am satisfied so far with the outcome of Brexit and expect to have a few bumps along the way but I am very positive that eventually I voted the correct way.
Hear, hear. I couldn’t agree more.
I went for the trade option above but it is very difficult to separate trade and immigration because whilst the UK is isolated from mainland Europe by water, it is not self sufficient in either goods or labour so agreements are needed on both.
In my opinion anyone who thinks the UK can maintain access to the single (EU) market but without allowing free movement of labour is deluding themselves. Given that we have been sent down this path (a path – for the record – I do not agree with), then the government needs to get its finger out. At worst, the UK will end up with WTO T&C’s with the EU – I will be pleasantly surprised if it is better but is it really worth flogging the dead horse of single market access when I think it’s pretty clear what the rest of the EU think about that idea. The gov’t need to be looking where the UK can get a better deal. Australia has already indicated the willingness for a deal so get talking to them. Take this a step further and look at ALL Commonwealth countries and see where that leads. And do it now so it’s all signed, sealed, delivered & ready for implementation in April 2019 and get rid of all this uncertainty.
Are you trying to say that without free movement of labour there will be no trade with the EU ? There will certainly be two way trade. There was before we joined and there will be again. The specific terms are currently unknown but will not be punitive due to the damage the EU would do to itself whilst it is trying to damage the UK. There will of course be a lot of posturing from the minor EU officials who think they have power but have none.
Where did I say that ? I said without free movement of labour there will be trade subject to WTO T&C’s, ie not FREE trade.
It is a negotiation so we will have different requirements on the table from day one and this will change as things progress. More importantly, the Dutch, French and Germans all have major elections this year meaning the shape of the table could change as well. This will be a very interesting year in politics.
None of the above. We should stop the uncertainty, invoke art. 50 immediately, let sterling drop (great for our trade balance and manufacturing employment) and let the world come to us to offer trade terms.
The first step is to decide what we as a country want our future to look like, and then the negotiating strategy and priorities follow those aims. Not the other way around.
That has already been decided. We want a country where we control our laws, our borders, and our money. That defines a total Brexit, as was defined on the ballot paper ie, to reverse the questions for clarity Not Out, or Not In. We chose Not In. No ambiguity there.
UK should approach the Brexit negotiations symbiotically. It is continually reported & in deed campaigned on, that Brexit voters primary concern was immigration. Even as an exit voter I believe that the UK will probably require more immigration not less if it to prosper long term. The primary reason for voting to leave was that I do not like the direction the EU was going. This can be summed up by the U in EU. I don’t want a Union of European countries but do desire a group of countries that work together for common good. Note this should not be restricted to geographical location.
Trade needs to take priority, but by this I mean free trade in the world, not hamstrung by EU rules and the customs union.
This will be a clean break from the EU and then we can get on with being what we are best at, being British in a world that appreciates us and everything that we stand for.
” The first step is to decide what we as a country want our future to look like…”
So, “as a country” what ever you do, do NOT have selfish, self-centred, self-satisfied, self-advancing politicians, who know nothing whatsoever about technology, science, engineering, commerce, business management… in charge? Any chance? Not as long as, alone (in or out of Europe) we rely upon the adversarial process to settle disputes. Great for those who are paid to use up even more of the nation’s entropy doing such: but useless in any curtailment of present lunacies.
Everyone is making the false assumption that Europe has nothing to lose by making life difficult for Britain, but nothing could be further from the truth.
This is because they are only looking at money. It is true that if there is no deal in place, the percentage GDP lost would be greater for the UK than Europe, but what about reputation.
Britain has a high profile for 1000 years. Everyone has an opinion about Britain and those opinions won’t change when the deal is done .
But what if Europe is vindictive to Britain? Europe doesn’t have a long standing reputation. It isn’t a major power. Without Britain, militarily it’s nothing. Financially it’s mediocre. The only thing Europe can boast is that it is ahead on moral issues, like worker rights, data protection, climate change etc.
Some Europeans are saying they should make an example of Britain, to intimidate voters in other dissatisfied parts of Europe into remaining though fear. But if they do that, it will send a message to the rest of the World that it an oppressive regime. In one action they will shred the only thing that Europe can claim is a success. Then it will be nothing.
So Europe has everything to lose.
I entirely agree with David Mawdsley’s comment and with Phillip Bott’s comment.
Let’s just assert our absolute independence as a trading nation, write our own bill of human rights [and responsibilities!] and take back complete control of our borders.
All applicants wishing to immigrate to UK should be assessed on their merits and, if considered to be an asset to the UK, given ‘landed immigrant’ status.
After a few years of integration into the UK, they would be able to apply for full UK citizenship.
This system worked perfectly for my wife and myself when we emigrated to Canada many years ago.
Theresa May should keep her promise that her deal will also work for those who voted remain. She also should think about those who were too young to vote, or due to the very short campaign duration felt too ill informed to vote and abstained – but now have a very certain opinion about the whole issue. I for my part do not want to lose my right to study or work in Mainland Europe. Especially given the horrendous tuition fees in England. As regards immigration, in October 2015 the Telegraph (!) sharply criticized Home Secretary Theresa May’s Tory conference speech and called her ideas about immigration “dangerous and factually wrong”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
Meanwhile, no new research has disproved these ideas, but the bot-driven hate campaign
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2094629-beware-the-brexit-bots-the-twitter-spam-out-to-swing-your-vote/
obviously has turned vile lies into perceived truth to such an extent that even Jeremy Corbyn now falls for it.
I was at the conference 20 feet from her and heard her speech, and was able to observe her body language. The left wing try to vilify her, but they are very wrong to do so. We cannot add 1 million people and their wider family every 3 years, and we cannot continue to have no control overr who remains here when a career criminal who was born abroad arrives. With our poor system of justice which prioritises the rights of the offender we have enough home grown career criminals to deaal with. As before we joined the EU we need a situation where we decide how many people we need, and who they are. Our country should be like our homes, where we welcome into our homes those whom we wish to, and entertain them for as long as we wish. We would not welcome strangers or relatives just deciding that they were coming to live with us without invitation or discussion would we ? The visa system always worked very well and will do again.
It may take many years to unravel our bonds with the EU some civil servants recon more than fifteen years because of the complexities in legislation and agreements in working practice, so the sooner we start the quicker we shall exit. Leaving the EU I don’t believe will have a great down side nor a great upside but the people voted to leave and you have to follow the majority view. Our main strength as a nation has never been in engineering our strength is the financial sector that is probably why most of us drive round in cars made in Germany, I have spent many years working throughout Europe and had to put up with their jokes about Morris Marina’s, Allegros and many other engineering products. They can’t say the same about our ability in the financial markets we shine really well so we need mainly to hang on to that area, as long as we do that we will be OK.
There is no one area. Our EU membership covers all aspects. Our withdrawal will be done to the rules as we always have done with the EU. What we must ensure is that the withdrawal happens and happens at no detriment to the UK. We must not incur any extra costs or rules that affect our ability to trade and live the way we wish to. The EU have already started to treat us differently and if this continues then we should taken action to mitigate ie withdrawal of payments , supporting EU initiatives etc. There must be no dragging of feet by those pro-institutions still angling for membership one way or another.
I entirely agree.
To me the issue is not either/or trade or immigration. For some time I have feeling the same way as the local citizens of our once mighty Empire, must have felt when they were unable to take decisions about what laws they wished to be governed by. The decisions were always made for them in far away London, this they resented and ultimately the Empire collapsed. We have inadvertently allowed our selves to become a colony of the European empire governed from Brussels! All the Empires that have ever existed have ultimately collapsed unfortunately with much bloodshed. So let’s get out now peacefully, while we have the chance!
We have been led into a situation which has cost us, and will cost us a lot more. All because successive governments refused to listen to the concerns of the masses. Not for one second do I believe the majority who voted leave would’ve done so had those concerns been taken seriously:
Doesn’t really matter. The future is in cooperation and dismantling of states and borders. Juche doesn’t really work.
“……Our main strength as a nation has never been in engineering ..”
Gerry Clarke has obviously lived in a different nation than that who’s Industrial Might (and consequent power -military and financial) was founded by my own, and I suspect most present day Engineers and technologists forbears? Siemens, the founder of much of the Engineering skills of Germany apprenticed himself to Mather & Platt in Manchester before returning to home to start.
The foundation of almost all Japanese Heavy Engineering had its roots in the scores of ‘factories’ -of which textile machinery exports from the UK formed a major element-Hoovered up by Japan after the visit of the Japanese Crown Prince in 1875. The individual who offered the basis of technical education into Japan, Professor Ewing (the building where I learnt my ‘Electrical’ Engineering at St Andrews named after him) was from these islands. And I have not even started to record Brunel, Telford, Babbage & Lady Lovelace…Stephenson….and the hundreds more, in the widest possible range of engineering disciplines who literally ‘drove’ the world for 150 years. Incidently, how did it all go so wrong? Could it be that making money out of money, as opposed to wealth out of manufacture is the key. I know, lets ask a Big Bang banker or a Financial crisis one ( South Sea bubble, 1928, 1973, (fill in the gaps yourself) until 2008 where we Engineers went wrong.
Come on Gerry, be a little more gracious?
” we welcome into our homes those whom we wish to, and entertain them for as long as we wish. We would not welcome strangers …”
Actually, having watched their disgraceful ways for 40+ years, I can see little that would have me invite a politician, of any persuasion (or a civil servant for that matter) into my home.