RayC

Not since we left the EU they are not, not without the individual and their UK employer jumping through numerous hoops and preparing reams of paperwork. I agree with you up to a point. The relatively sudden lifting of Covid restrictions meant that the Aviation industry had little time to get back to a normal operational level. However, the effect was enhanced by Brexit. 30+% of staff in UK airports were EU nationals, and many (most?) left the UK during Covid and have not returned. No other nation in Europe is suffering such severe disruption at its' airports as the UK, and the reason for this is that there is more availability of fully-trained staff who might (pre-Brexit) have been tempted by a job in the UK. Pre-Brexit they didn't need work permits. They could land in the UK and apply for jobs while here. Skilled professionals such as doctors are in demand everywhere, why go through the hassle of complying with requirements when elsewhere, you don't need to?

That might be the idea but it is not as simple as 'one immigrant worker out, one domestic worker in'. There is a currently a shortage of workers in the aviation industry, some of which is due to EU workers not returning. Apparently it takes 12 weeks to train/ clear individuals to work in security/ baggage handling, etc. at airports. Obviously not a long term problem but no comfort to those people having their holidays cancelled. However, what about those jobs which require longer training/ more experience? You can't simply take people out of an unemployment line and tell them that they are now an accountant/ doctor/ systems analyst/ etc. These jobs will need to be filled by overseas workers and, as I said previously, simply replacing EU nationals with other overseas nationals seems a pretty pointless exercise and offers no real benefits

Unemployment levels are currently declining which can only be a good thing but the number of job vacancies is increasing with many sectors unable to recruit domestically in the UK. These vacancies will need to be filled - if not locally then from abroad - or they will simply disappear which can't be good for the economy. As I said previously, we are most likely simply going to replace EU immigrants with those from elsewhere. Was this one of the aims of Brexit? I don't see how that is much of a benefit.

Given that the UK doesn't seem able to fulfill its' labour requirements domestically, it needs to import labour. It seems that we may well end up with simply replacing EU nationals with nationals from elsewhere. Begs the question, why bother? But no one seems to be able to give any, even vague, estimation when these perceived benefits are likely to be realised. To quote Keynes out of context: "In the long run, we are all dead". Any benefits won't be much use to us then.

That just seems to be diplomatic speak for "We met, we talked, we didn't agree anything but we didn't end up fighting either"

It's going to be time consuming dealing directly with 50 individual states. In any event, as @Chomper HiggotHiggot points out, US import tariffs are set at a federal level, so no way of side-stepping dealing with Biden. I thought one of the advantages of Brexit was that the UK would be able to be more nimble in negotiating trade deals? 5-20 years to conclude a deal is no better than the EU.

We agree on something (although the talks weren't going anywhere quickly when Trump was in charge). Little prospect of any deal with the US, bridges burnt (or burning) with China and the EU. That's a lot of the world where British exporters might be dealt with unfavourably.

Of course, silly me. Like the EU, the US needs us more than we need them. Namely? The US administration must be devastated. Of course not. Exports only down by £20bn last year. Nothing to worry about. I thought that it was meant to have disintegrated as soon as the UK left?

So a trade deal with the US is imminent then? Relations with the EU will be repaired? The UK will forge ahead and the Brexit Bonuses will click into gear. Any idea when this is likely to happen? I want to make sure that I don't miss it.

Correct Incorrect Then wave goodbye to any lingering hopes of a trade deal with the US. Then wave goodbye to any lingering hopes of better relations with the EU. Maybe in the eyes of some Again maybe in the eyes of some. However, if your scenario ever occurred, the UK would effectively be without a friend in the world and on the road to economic ruin. Oh well, never mind.

It's the EU's fault!

In a previous post you stated that people who voted Brexit did so for different reasons, and had different ideas about what Brexit might look like. In your penultimate paragraph, you now seem to infer that there is one 'pure' form of Brexit. Which is it? Apart from the adjective 'treacherous', the statement in your final paragraph is a concise summary of events. The next (major) event in this sequence was that Agreement with the EU was brokered and signed by Johnson's government. This is also a statement of fact. Therefore - repeating myself for the umpteenth time - you must surely agree that the current UK administration should take responsibility and be accountable for its' own actions (and the current chaos has nothing to do with Remainers?

It's not me who is being evasive. You blame Remainers in parliament for the failure to reach a deal during the four years of negotiations but conveniently omit the fact that the ERG MPs, and Boris Johnson himself, voted against Theresa May's proposals. I mentioned the NI issue at the beginning of this dialogue and you chose to ignore it. I'll repeat it here in case you now want to address it. Johnson's government brokered a deal which ignored a warning from the DUP that they would not support this deal. The current problems in NI are a direct result of Johnson not heeding this warning. It is not the EU's - or Remainers in parliament or elsewhere - fault that the UK cannot comply with agreed Protocol, it is the UK's government. Whatever way you want to look at it, the whole Brexit process has been a disaster and an embarrassment from the UK's perspective from beginning to where we are now.

Right. Then there was a general election and a deal brokered by the current UK administration was agreed. Whose fault is it that the same UK administration is unable and/or unwilling to implement that agreement? Actually, that's a rhetorical question. I know the answer: Anyone but us. I wonder if Balatelli has any of those 'Why always me?' T-shirts left? He could send a few to the UK cabinet.

This is exactly what I meant about a lack of accountability and responsibility on the part of Brexiters. It's always someone else's fault. No doubt that the absence of any trade deal with the US will be the fault of the Irish influence in the US senate.

It might be argued that the EU could be more flexible in the implementation of some border controls e.g. have a list of 'trusted traders' where there were minimal controls. However, the fact that the UK government has regnated on commitments and threatened to break international law means that trust in short supply. Given that, the EU chooses to implement the letter of the law. Who can blame them? The UK government left the EU. The EU did not leave the UK. It's about time that the UK government (and Brexiters in general) took some responsibility and accountability for this decision, rather than pointing the finger at others.

I was simply disagreeing with your assertion that the effects of Brexit could not be predicted. Moreover, as @Kinnock infers any discussion of Johnson's future must surely take into account his past record as PM (bolding unintentional).

Agreed but there is little short-term evidence to suggest that there are/ will be any benefits to Brexit, in fact, the opposite https://www.ft.com/content/c6ee4ce2-95b3-4d92-858f-c50566529b5e Likewise there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that the current UK government is any less incompetent than the EU authorities. Any evidence/ sources that provide projections to support this wishful thinking? That there are federalists in Brussels and the EU is undeniable, but unless the individual member states vote for a federal Europe (which they won't) then it will not happen. Unelected technocrats in Brussels - I assume that you mean the Commission? - do not pass laws. EU legislation is passed by the European Council - which is comprised of the 27 member states' heads of government - and the European parliament, whose members are directly elected by the voters in EU member states. In a similar way to the unelected mandarins in Whitehall, the unelected technocrats in Brussels take their policy direction from their political masters (the UK government and the European Council respectively). One added value for member states is that they can direct the Commission to work on policy areas where they may lack the necessary time, resources or expertise to do so themselves. Between 1999 and 2016, the UK was forced to enact +/-2% of EU legislation with which it disagreed. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/ I don't believe that all the economic, political and social chaos caused by Brexit is worth it in order to reclaim 2% of sovereignty but clearly others disagree.

Many of the effects of the Brexit deal were not difficult to predict. For example, as a result of leaving the EU Customs Union, there has been an increase in the amount of bureaucracy for UK exporters and the introduction of border checks has increased delivery times. Both factors have contributed to increased costs for UK exporters. Both of these events could be foreseen but not planned for in any meaningful sense by the UK government. The DUP warned throughout the Brexit negotiations that they would not support a border down the middle of the Irish Sea. Johnson chose to ignore this statement. Again, the political impasse that has subsequently occurred in NI was not hard to predict.

The UK may have formally left the EU but the deal that Johnson brokered was hardly 'oven-ready' as he claimed.

Result was never in doubt but the margin of victory was a disaster for Johnson. Now a question of when he goes. Bookies have him 1/2 not to lead Tories into next election.

Spot on. An overwhelmingly win e.g. +/- 80%-20% and Johnson could have justifiably claimed that he had the backing of the Tory PP and dealt with the dissenters. The fact that 40% believe he should go now plus - almost certainly - those lacking the courage to stick their heads above the parapet at this moment, plus some in the cabinet honour bound (haha) to vote for him, means that his position is untenable. Question of 'when' not 'if' he goes. Imo the longer he hangs on the better for the opposition. However, as another poster inferred, the sooner he goes the better will be best for the country.

That old chestnut again. https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-statistics-authority-misuse/

If the Brexit deal is unilaterally scrapped by the UK, it will effectively put pay to any lingering hopes of a UK-US free trade deal for the foreseeable future. The UK will then have effectively alienated its' 3 biggest trading partners (The EU, the US and China). Doesn't seem like much of a Brexit bonus to me. In any event, it is not as though this problem could not be foreseen. The DUP warned throughout the Brexit negotiations that a border down the North Sea was unacceptable to them but the UK government chose to ignore this warning. The problem is of the UK government's own making. Sadly, it is another example of it not taking responsibility and accountability for its' actions.

You question the validity of the poll without giving any evidence to support your position. This seems to be a trend. If the instances you quote are anything to go by then they are spectacularly poor at doing so! Clinton and 'Remain' were ahead on (almost) all polls. I assume that you are inferring that BBC and CNN are unreliable sources of information? Who would you have us trust for 'the facts'? Pravda? I don't but as I stated above you provide no evidence to the contrary. At any rate, all this is tangential. I notice that you make no attempt to address my main points i.e. whether nations have the right to self-determination and how the Russian invasion can be justified. You seem to believe that because the West/ NATO might have intervened in previous conflicts without justification then it has no business intervening in any future conflicts. Incidentally, what's your view on Finland applying for NATO membership? Should it be allowed or is it another example of a country being seduced by NATO and which needs saving from itself?