RayC

Agreed. But if the UK government had been so concerned about the training given to the UK workforce, it could have subsided it (in a way that would not have broken EU state subsidy rules).

As an aside, what's the Brexiters reaction to the news that their hero is the one who apparently wants to take a softer line with the EU? Is it now 'Off to the Tower' with him and 'All Hail, Queen Lizzie (Truss)'?

Err ... NI is part of the UK. Shouldn't Westminster be taking an interest in its' affairs and trying to solve any problems.

No matter what way you dress it up, it's a border and its' existence was unacceptable to the DUP.

That has nothing to do with it. Some simple "'Yes'/'No' answer" questions: Were the objections of the DUP to a border down the Irish Sea known before the Brexit Agreement was signed? Could the reactions of the DUP to the UK disregarding the DUP's objections be foreseen? Did the UK government enact any legislation to deal with the DUP's objectives immediately before or shortly after the signing of the Brexit Agreement? Therefore logically, Can the EU be blamed for the chaotic situation we now find ourselves in?

I assume by Irish you mean the DUP? If so, I agree. Which begs the question: If Johnson knew this, why did he sign the Agreement? You can't have a border and no border simultaneously in January 2020, now or at any time in the future, unless some Einstein-like mathematical genius comes along and destroys the rules of deductive logic. Maybe that's the plan?

It is. You're watching a repeat on 'Dave'. Spoiler alert: It didn't turn out so great for us Brits.

There was nothing to stop the UK training its' workforce while it was a member of the EU. An UK industrial strategy containing incentives for industry to do so could have been introduced. The problems faced by the Polish health service are more deep-seated than simply stopping their doctors from emigrating. In 2020, only 9% of qualified doctors emigrated from Poland. Not great but not an insurmountable problem in itself. The bigger problem is a chronic lack of investment.

How on earth can you come to the conclusion that the EU is interfering with the UK's sovereignty? The UK came to an Agreement with the EU that there would effectively be a border in the Irish Sea, ignoring warnings from the DUP that this would cause problems and increase tensions in NI. What would you have had the EU do? Refuse to sign the Agreement because they were worried about the matter? They would then -perhaps justifiably - have been accused of meddling in UK domestic issues. I can only imagine the outrage that Brexiters would have expressed if this scenario had become reality. So all the troubles caused by the protocol is due to Sinn Fein having the audacity to stand for election and the NI electorate for making them the biggest party? This would be laughable, and could form the basis of a Whitehall farce, if it wasn't so serious. Identifying the cause of the problem is simple. It is due to the inability and/or the unwillingness of the UK government, who signed the deal to fully implement it. The ability of Brexiters and this UK administration to avoid taking responsibility and accountability for their actions is astonishing, as is their ability to find new entities to blame.

We've established that. It doesn't address my point that restricting freedom of movement is an impediment to labour mobility.

You keep on about cheap labour. Does this mean EU nationals are paid less than their UK counterparts? If so, I would have thought that you'd be in favour of that? Clever UK employers getting one over on Johnny Foreigner. If they are then they are missing a trick if they are looking for the country with the most generous welfare benefits. They'd be better off in France, Belgium or Italy amongst others.

Not unless they applied for, and were granted 'settled status' they can't. There is no doubt that the restriction on freedom of movement is an impediment to EU nationals applying for jobs in the UK.

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.