RayC

Nuance. You won't get anywhere by introducing 'Woke' concepts like that.

'Whataboutery' as a defence for a neo-Nazi.

It is very easy for Brits - who would potentially benefit for the enclosing of the European mainland in fencing so far as illegal migration flows are concerned - to casually insist that such a measure is necessary, but quite another matter for the denizens of Europe who would be negatively affected economically, societally, environmentally, etc by such a development. In future, there may be an increase in the number of times Schengen is temporarily suspended and in the number of temporary border checks, but I doubt that Schengen will be abolished. I provided a link in a previous post regarding the costs of abolishing and suspending Schengen. That paper was published in 2016 and probably understates the amount: There are now 2m daily cross-border workers in the EU, and 1,857 billion tonne-kilometres of freight is transported by road (2022 figures). Imagine the chaos if border checks were reintroduced throughout the Schengen zone. My comment about the UK footing the bill for the abolition of Schengen was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, in the extremely unlikely event that it were to happen at the UK's behest, why shouldn't the UK bear (at least) some of the cost? I am not accusing you of being uncompassionate - your comment shows that you are not - and I share your concern about economic migrants abusing the system. However, I do think that you understate and over-simplify the complexity of the problem. Securing Europe's borders (internal and external) is no simple matter as the attached link clearly illustrates. https://www.frontex.europa.eu/what-we-do/monitoring-and-risk-analysis/migratory-routes/migratory-routes/ Given that it's too late to take a different (Brexit) path and following the current one has hardly been successful, wouldn't it be logical to at least, inquire about rejoining the EU?😉

Hungary secured its' borders by erecting a fence. I'm not sure that the majority of EU citizens would consider erecting fences all over Europe a price worth paying. You place great store on the perceived costs to the UK of Schengen but what about the costs of abolishing/ suspending it? Would you be happy for the UK to compensate EU states for their losses if Schengen were to be abolished? The majority of illegal immigrants land in Italy, Greece and Turkey, who are unable and unwilling to accommodate all these individuals. Some in other nations might say, "Bad luck but not our problem".However if that is the attitude, who could blame Italy, Greece and Turkey if they do little to prevent their unwanted 'guests' from leaving their territories? Illegal immigration is a problem for all of Europe and it therefore needs co-ordinated action. You state correctly that, Schengen's main objective is to ease of the movement of EU nationals, " ... but that " ... it has also eased movement of all", which is also true. However, what has this to do with Brexit? Schengen has nothing to do with the UK ending FOM post-Brexit. I still do not understand how "the end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of (the UK) leaving (the EU)". You'll get no argument from me when you criticise Cameron, May and Johnson for their handling of the Brexit process, but - as I said previously - what I don't understand is 1) what "different path" should have been taken and 2) what these benefits would be and how they would be delivered?

Schengen came into operation in 1995 so it predates the migrant crisis. It is obviously easier to move between nations with open, rather than closed borders, so reintroducing border controls might mitigate some of the problems of illegal migration, but it almost certainly won't solve the problem. Europe's internal borders are simply too large to be made completely secure. Moreover, Schengen has brought significant benefits and there would be an economic cost if it were to be abolished/ suspended. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/579074/EPRS_ATA(2016)579074_EN.pdf You state that, "The end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving ..." but don't elaborate about why this should be the case. I agree that Johnson's government mishandled Brexit. However, even if it had been handled perfectly I very much doubt that we would now be experiencing any benefit.

That it is what the OBR report says. The costs are directly attributable to Brexit

We checked out in 2020 but the question is, 'Is it in our best interests to use some of the hotel's facilities?' Wrt the three 'major' benefits of Brexit, the first, fishing, is almost insignificant in terms of its' economic importance. It represents 0.03% of economic activity in the UK and employs 11k people and these numbers are still declining Why fishing became such a major issue (for both sides) in the original negotiations is a mystery to me. I also don't understand why the free movement of EU nationals under 30 should present a problem. This is the group who, pre-Brexit, used to be employed in the seasonal, part-time jobs which are now proving so difficult to fill. Moreover, many (most?) of this group will not wish to settle permanently in the UK. If it is considered desirable to reduce the number of 'permanent' immigrants, surely this is one way of doing so? The article suggests that the UK would be st the ECJ in matters relating to Food and Agricultural standards. In practice, currently this wouldn't be a problem. UK food standards are consistent with EU regulations and, in many cases, are stricter than the minimal requirements set by EU regulations. I accept that adhering to EU food and agriculture might be a problem when it comes to negotiating a free trade deal with the US - and if we wanted to amend standards in the future - but I would make the following two points: Firstly, is it desirable to drop our standards in such an important sector such as food and Agriculture? Secondly, given Trump's pronouncements about US trade policy, a free trade deal with the US isn't going to happen any time so in that regard, the issue of food standards is pretty irrelevant.

I don't think that inflation is being ignored. GDP figures quoted by the ONS are real i.e. adjusted for inflation, so I would have thought the OBR uses the same datasets although I can't confirm that for certain.

Yes I did bring up Brexit and GDP but - as I previously remarked - none of the data which you have posted negates the premise that Brexit has had an adverse effect on the UK GDP (and wider economy). Here are some of the estimates contained in the OBR report for ease of reference: As a result of Brexit: * The UK economy has shrunk by £140 billion. * The poorest 10% of the population experienced a 20% fall in living standards between 2019/20 and 2024/25. * Yearly household food bills have increased by £250. * The average Brit has lost almost £2,000. * The UK economy is 2.5% smaller than it would have been if Remain had won the referendum. * Public finances fell by £26 billion a year. * Brexit reduced Britain's GDP by 5.5 per cent by the second quarter of 2022. (List AI generated based on the OBR report) The OBR report details the assumptions underlining its' estimates and the methodology used. Do you object to these assumptions and/or the methodology used? If so, it would be interesting to see these objections.

Do you seriously believe that a UK parliamentary committee - which incidentally consists of MPs from all three main parties - have asked Elon Musk to appear before them as a pretext for then detaining him on charges of counter terrorism?

France, Germany and the US all recorded their highest levels of GDP in 2023 and the GDP figures for these countries over the period 1960 - 2023 all show an upward trend, so I don't understand what point you are trying to make? Apparently membership of CPTTP, while welcome, will not wipe out the "paltry" £3bn quoted in the OP, as it will only add £2 billion (0.08%) annually over the long run to UK GDP (Source: UK government impact assessment). This figure pales into insignificance against the estimated cost of Brexit to the UK economy detailed in the OBR and numerous other reports. Nothing in your post negates the premise that Brexit has - and continues to be - a huge cost to the UK economy.

You're right. £3bn is peanuts in the big scheme of things. I wonder what that figure relates to given that estimates of the cost of Brexit to the UK economy range from 2-5% of GDP? (One of many reports) https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

There you go https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_3676

Please point out what is factually incorrect about stating that immigration to the UK was lower when we were a member of the EU compared to the situation today when we are outside the bloc? It's a fact which you are seemingly unable to accept, presumably because it doesn't fit your narrative. If you spend less time posting angry, aggressive and confrontational rhetoric - and replying in a similar manner when challenged - imo you shouldn't be surprised when someone replies in kind. If you want to engage in civilised, polite discussion, you will find that I will reciprocate. Just an idea; what tone you adopt is, of course, entirely up to you🕊️

Please don't attribute statements to me which I didn't make. Nowhere did I state that Reform winning the council election in St. Helens had nothing to do with Farage. Yes there is. I have not stated or suggested otherwise anywhere. In any event, it has no bearing on my point. What does that actually mean? You care to tell me what this Brit culture to which we'll be returning will look like? Standing terraces at football matches? Fish'n'chips wrapped in newspaper? Punks in the King's Road? The London Docks reopening? Reform will fix the immigration 'problem'. That's what the Tories said and what Labour are promising. Forgive my skepticism. Apart from the word 'Reform', you could have told me that those statements were lifted from any UK party manifesto and I would have believed you. As I said in the previous paragraph, forgive my skepticism. It's a truism to say that the voters of St. Helens voted for Farage/ Reform because they liked what they heard. They were hardly likely to vote for a party/ individual where they didn't like what they were being told! And that's all well and good but to return to my original point: In no way does any of that prove that/explain why a video of a police raid, which took place in Bethnel Green, London, should have relevance to the outcome of a council by-election in a ward in St. Helens, Lancashire, a town some 200 miles away, even if - unlikely as it is - the voters actually saw the video in question.