RayC

I agree entirely that the UK should do a much better job in educating its' workforce. I also agree that allowing people to "rot on the dole" is a lazy, uneconomic and inefficient system however, generally speaking, the UK has always been dependent on migrant labour to fill some of its' job vacancies and I don't see any problem with that.

Then perhaps Carl - and others - should give things a bit more thought. The reduction in economic activity caused by Brexit will, most likely, eventually lead to a reduction in demand for his hod-carrying services.

Obviously overseas companies' (outside of the EEA) want to do business in the UK if it is profitable for them, but I'd suggest that they would much prefer it if the UK was part of the bloc as they now have to potentially deal with two separate points of entry and regulatory regimes. All adds to the costs and time, especially if goods are to be re-exported into the EU (or UK). In any event, EEA member states - some of whom happen to be our biggest trading partners - would almost certainly prefer us to be within the block. Undoubtedly true. But it is also equally true that reducing barriers such as quotas, tariffs and red tape tends to increase the level of trade.

Are we meant to deduce from that that being in the EU somehow prevented the UK from introducing these state-of-the-art passports? Who'd have thought that blue pigmentation could be so powerful?

CheapER labour. Isn't this how market economies are meant to function? New entrants to the market and all that. Isn't this also a variation of the protectionist argument that Brexiters are keen to level against the EU?

Then you shouldn't have taken the original post and used it out of context How on earth can you possibly reach this conclusion? (see my original post at the bottom of this post). It's in the bloody report!!! Unless someone is extracting the urine, the government thought that it was worth publishing. Maybe there is. As I keep saying, I gave up at p.20. Maybe you could point out any interesting bits further on in the document? Not for the first time, you are being selective and pedantic. It seems like you've also decided to throw flawed logic into the mix this time as well!! Please explain how you can accuse me of being deceptive based on my original post? (given below IN FULL, together with KhunLA's post for completeness) -------------- I started on p.5 and got to p.20 before giving up. Achievements include reintroducing blue passports; suggesting that imperial measurements might be used instead of metric and the 'jewel in the crown' (pun intended), enabling businesses to use a crown symbol on pint glasses. And to think that the government of the UK allowed such banality to be published under its' name.

(In future, could you please read previous posts in the thread. I have commented on this government publication earlier. Thanks.) Anyway ... Yes, it is cherry picking. However, feel free to pick something you consider more substantial from that document and I will try to address it. I'll repeat what I posted previously: I read pages 5 - 18. That was enough for me. There was little that was quantifiable in those 14 pages. Most of the items amounted to a 'Wish list'. Very little has been achieved. Presumably, this explains the need to pad out things with nonsense about crowns on pint glasses? Covered above.

And how does that address my initial question to Kwasaki, who inferred that the EU had problems trading with the rest of the world?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1054643/benefits-of-brexit.pdf (Originally posted by KhunLA two pages back)

I agree completely: It is a minor irrelevant point. However, my point is that the UK government deem it of sufficient worth to warrant a mention as an "achievement" in an official UK government publication! This Brexit supporting government is reduced to listing the re-introduction of blue passports, the printing of crowns on pint glasses and the deletion of the metric system as an essential form of measurement as justification for the chaos of the last six years. It beggars belief.

The irony isn't lost on me. In 2016 I had been living in Belgium for 15 years. I did not have a vote on an issue which had a direct impact on my life. A Brit living in Thailand for less than 5 years - the majority of whom seemed to be Brexiters - were eligible to vote. Am I still bitter? Yep. As has pointed out on numerous occasions, it is far from done and dusted e.g. the Protocol, the service industries, etc. That may be your experience. It's not mine. For the person working on the shop floor who never travels to the EU that might be true. Alternatively, that shop floor employee might have worked for a company trading with an EU member state. That business may have been negatively affected by Brexit and the employee might have been made redundant. Your part of the country must attract a different type of young European to mine (South London). Those I come into contact with are charming (although I agree, unfortunately, there appear to be fewer of them).

"No" what exactly? When the UK was part of the EU it was obliged to use the metric system. However, there were exceptions to this rule e.g. pints for beer (or spirits!). Retailers were also free to use imperial units alongside the metric measurement. Post-Brexit retailers can now use imperial measurements in splendid isolation. Forgive me for being underwhelmed by this achievement.

I started on p.5 and got to p.20 before giving up. Achievements include reintroducing blue passports; suggesting that imperial measurements might be used instead of metric and the 'jewel in the crown' (pun intended), enabling businesses to use a crown symbol on pint glasses. And to think that the government of the UK allowed such banality to be published under its' name.

Fair play to you for at least trying to justify Brexit with some evidence in this thread. However, in this particular instance it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that these 71 trade deals were somehow a consequence of Brexit. They were almost entirely roll-overs. The Brexit achievements amount to a slightly wider ranging deal with Japan, deals with Oz and NZ which seem to favour them more than us and some deals with a handful of islands with whom we have next to no trade. I don't understand how you can dismiss trade relations with the world's biggest economy in such an apparently flippant manner.

It simply isn't true to say that membership of the EU would have prevented the UK following a vaccination programme of its' own choosing.

Care to elaborate.

I agree that we haven't had a decent government in a long while. I'd also suggest that no government during my adult life has been particularly adept at long-term planning. You are also, of course, correct that what is posted here or - more often than not - in the media is opinion. However, most media opinion from reputable sources is backed by evidence supporting their view. I would also suggest that 'Remainers' on this board back up their arguments with links more often than not. It's possible that the evidence is flawed, but the onus is then on those opposing the proposition to point the flaws. Unfortunately, the Brexiter argument presented in this forum almost invariably amounts to no more than the use of emotive words such as 'mafia', 'corrupt', etc. When challenged to back up these assertions with evidence, nothing is usually forthcoming.

If that's 'Hear, hear' you agree with me then great. Thanks. On the other hand, if you are suggesting that the EU is a mafia club dominated by France and Germany then maybe you'd like to address my challenge to Kwasaki? (I suspect that the answer will be 'No' but go on prove me wrong????)

Can you detail the contents of this new found post-Brexit freedom? Personally, I feel a lot less free. Unless I receive an impossible-to-refuse job offer my working days are behind me. Just as well as the number of job opportunities within the EU member states open to Brits is significantly reduced. I feel sorry for the Brits of working age who don't have the opportunities which I had.

You are the one complaining that the EU is a mafia club dominated by France and Germany.

Just realized that I greatly exaggerated the figure. Of the 5.5 million Brits abroad, 1m are pensioners. The majority of the remaining 4.5m are presumably working and paying local income tax. Unless they are renting out their homes in the UK or have significant investment income, they are probably unaffected. I would hazard a guess that removing the tax allowance from this group would raise +/-£4-5 million. Not a drop in the ocean but a lot less significant.

There are an estimated 5.5m Brits abroad so - assuming that they are all have £12,500 income - abolishing the tax-free allowance would raise +/-£13.75 billion. Hardly a trivial sum so it's a valid concern. However, imo the easier target are the non-doms. Abolishing their status - assuming that they don't all leave - would raise +/-£18 billion and very few of the electorate would have much sympathy for them.

Err .. you're forgetting something .... I suppose as the late Mr. Loaf said: "Two out of three ain't bad".

Can you identify any proposals originating from Brussels, which were strongly supported by either France or Germany, but were opposed by the rest of the EU member states but which, nevertheless, subsequently passed into law?

No doubt Brexiters will agree that is because of the effects of Covid and the war in Ukraine!