RayC

Re your final paragraph: To date, the over-whelming weight of evidence supports the view that Brexit has damaged the UK economy. Given this, I don't see why it should be a problem to highlight this evidence. As for the rest of your points: There might be some truth in what you say, but equally you could be accused of celebrating negative news about the EU member states.

Something of a myth that the UK is the preferred destination for asylum seekers. The bottom line is that it is a Europe-wide issue. https://www.worlddata.info/refugees-by-country.php

This whole area is a minefield of confusion. I made some voluntary contributions earlier this year and was informed that paying AVCs for years prior to 2016 would not increase my pension. If ever there was a case of caveat emptor it's here. (As an aside, presumably AVCs will increase by the rate of inflation (?) which means that anyone buying extra years from 6 April 23 will probably have to fork out an extra +/-£90 per year).

The opinions may be drawn from construction managers working in different industries but the graph which you published relates to construction not other sectors, and there are separate indices for the manufacturing and service sectors. Therefore, the graph you published cannot be said to be representative of the views of managers throughout all sectors of the economy. In any event, while the S&P indices may be important indicators, where is the evidence to support your categoric contention that they are the "best indicator of economic growth"?

It's certainly not good news that those working in construction in the Eurozone are pessimistic about their immediate future prospects, but why should an index that only covers one sector be the best leading indicator for the economy as a whole?

If you misrepresent my comments and/or post false information as you have done recently, then I will continue to post corrections.

I'm afraid that we have both been slow on the uptake: He's trolling.

I imagine that it will take a few years for the news to filter through to Pai, and a few more years for the hippies to comprehend what they are being told.

Re salaries: Agree completely Depends which is the home country: France, Germany, Benelux - yes. Not in Eastern Europe they wouldn't. (As the Politico link shows this is actually a problem for some of these countries, so you can pocket that as one negative for freedom of movement). Is that not a possibility? For example, Papworth is (was?) world-renowned for its' cardiology expertise.

For any number of reasons: Money; superior working conditions; the opportunity to further their knowledge/ career; opportunity to experience a different country/ culture, etc. On reflection you are probably correct: Why would a qualified doctor from the EU want to come and work in the UK (especially post-Brexit)?

The UK was not an attractive proposition for EU doctors when the UK was a member and it doesn't appear to have become any more attractive since we left. Perhaps it would pertinent to ask why?

Couple of evasive non-answers as usual. You're consistent, I'll give you that!

My exchange with JonnyF was entirely about the UK/EU (EC/EEC/EEA) and I was replying to his comment that " ... for all the talk of the pound's demise, it's at the same level vs the EURO (my caps) that is was in 2010." Why do you then quote my post and reply with a comment about the £/baht rate, which neither of us have mentioned? Are you deliberately trying to confuse matters?

The EU is not a federalist project. One reason is to preserve a level playing field. Ignoring the moral argument for improving animal welfare, allowing a country to ignore minimal standards would give them a (cost of production) advantage over nations with higher standards. Minimal environmental standards are another example. These all have cost implications. (I accept that the introduction of such laws does not ensure a level playing field. In many areas, the UK has stricter animal welfare laws than those laid down by the EU which puts the British farmer at a disadvantage. However, that is not the fault of the EU, and it's a matter for the UK government, NFU and UK consumer to sort out). It's not unproven unless you do not accept the findings of the OBR. In which case, perhaps you could detail the flaws in their methodology. The longer the time horizon the less reliable the forecast. BUT where is the evidence to suggest that leaving the EU will lead to an improvement in the UK's economic performance over the next two decades? There is none So what? So were EU member states and all other nations. Pure supposition/ wishful thinking with not a sherd of evidence to support it. What long game are we playing? There is no plan because there is nothing to implement that will bring economic benefits. The pound may have been at today's levels back in 2010 but this is the longest sustained period where it has traded at this level. Moreover, the direction of travel is clear: downwards.

I can only repeat what I already said. In previous guises, the EU may have simply been a trading block. It has evolved with the times out of necessity and is now an economic and political entity. Clearly you think this a bad thing; I don't. As I said, never the twain ... The amount of money available to the UK government to be invested in your local area has been reduced as a result of the decision to leave the EU. How's that a good thing?

I don't agree with much of what you say but it is interesting to hear a view from someone outside of the UK and EU.

My criticism was focused (at vocational training). You can't claim that the system as a whole is working optimally if one component is sub-optimal.

Any idea how long we might have to wait? I know it's selfish, but this rich bounty of benefits won't be of much use to me when I'm pushing up the daisies!

You call it 'aspect', I call it 'component': It amounts to the same thing. How does saying that vocational training in the UK denigrate the work that teachers put in? In any event, even if that was the case, why should the education system be above criticism? Imo vocational training in the UK is not fit for purpose and lags behind some European peers e.g. Belgium, France, Germany. Whether that is because of the inherent flaws in the system, a lack of investment, poor teachers I don't know (probably a combination of these and other factors to varying degrees).

Someone living 6,000 miles away, largely unaffected by events, telling me to stop moaning about a decision which had a direct effect on my life because it annoys them. I'm so sorry for any upset that I may have caused you!

It's a failing component of the education system whatever way you phrase things

Of course, the UK would deploy the full force of the Border Control Agency to patrol the length and breadth of the UK coastline if the roles were reversed. However, I do agree that we have been down this road before. Imo it's no more than a symbolic, sticking plaster exercise: 100 more officers isn't going to make much difference.

Wasn't part of the justification for leaving that we could depart from the EU regulatory regime? If that happens presumably we'll have to renegotiate these 70-odd roll-over agreements? (And some people on this board claim that Brexit is done and dusted) It is. But perhaps some of the British people should have paid more attention to the voices of British industry who warned that Brexit would have negative economic effects. 50/60/70 years ago the world was a simpler place. The limited regulation associated with the EEC would not had been fit for purpose in 2022. This is just unsubstantiated, empty rhetoric. There are federalists in Europe but there are in the minority. There will not be a federal EU in my lifetime. Any such development would require treaty change and unanimous support from member states. Where is the evidence that Berlin and Paris would support this, let alone Budapest and Warsaw? Again more empty rhetoric. European technocrats do not pass EU legislation although they draft it (rather like UK civil servants). EU regulation has to be supported by elected EU parliamentarians and heads of government from the EU member states. If it isn't, it will not become law. As I have repeatedly stated previously, the UK had to implement 3% of EU legislation against its' will (a similar figure to Germany who supposedly run things). In any organisation, compromise has to be present. I think 'losing' 3% of sovereignty is a price worth paying for the benefits of EU membership. Maybe you don't. Never the twain .... And what is true democracy? The current UK electoral system? I don't think so. The ability to be 'Masters of our own destiny"? Well, that fallacy was laid to rest a few weeks ago.

It's no different to any other form of investment e.g. regional 'aid' (poor choice of word) in the UK. Investing in the less developed areas will, hopefully, stimulate the local economy and make locals and investors wealthier.

Vocational training is sadly lacking in the UK especially when compared to our peers e.g. Germany.