RayC

Leaving aside the illegal migrants for the time being, what is it about the legal migrants that you object to? In what way are they unneeded if they are coming to the UK to work?

I assume that you didn't read my post before embarking on your rant? There are 5.9 million foreign born workers in the UK There are 1.5 million unemployed in the UK There are 2.4 people on long-term sickness benefits (all "scroungers"? Not a genuine one amongst them?) If we send all the foreigners back home and get all the long-term sick back to work there will be still be, at least, 2 million unfilled job vacancies (5.9 - (1.5+2.4)) So, same question as before: How do we fill those 2 million jobs?

No exceptions. She's got to go.

"The foreign born made up an estimated 18% of the employed population (5.9 million) in the third quarter (July-September) of 2021" (Source: Migration Observeratory) Latest figures (Source: Commons Library) show 1.46m unemployed in UK. Notwithstanding the slight discrepancy in the dates, assuming (1) all the unemployed are UK-born and (2) they are willing and able to fill all the jobs vacated by 'sending the foreigners back home', that leaves +/-4.4m employment vacancies. Any ideas how to fill those jobs?

A subjective opinion with no evidence to support it.

It does in the eyes of the law.

So, even if the claim was true at the time, it is now outdated and no longer relevant.

Your friend obviously isn't using the same set of criterion as the Home Office in order to identify genuine refugees. 75% of asylum claims are granted on application with another +/-10% granted on appeal.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the prospects of the TCA changing much https://ukandeu.ac.uk/will-the-2026-tca-review-reshape-uk-eu-relations/

The US contributes +/- $.5bn/ annum towards NATO's running costs (US total defence spending is obviously a whole lot more). Imo Belgian chocolate is delicious. Nevertheless, increasing spending on Belgian chocolate by +/-$.5bn/ annum is not a good idea. Just think of the increase in diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, etc. The health care services worldwide simply wouldn't be able to cope🤷

Sorry to hear of your misfortune. MRT link https://www.mrta.co.th/en/lost-and-found-centre/11131 A similar thing happened to me in a market in Brussels years back. I was at a stall when a fellow stood on my foot. He apologised but didn't immediately move his foot. At the same time I felt my pocket move. Realising that they had been rumbled, they took off with me in hot pursuit. My shouts of 'Voleur" roused a number of stall holders and a 'Keystone Cops/ 'Benny Hill' type chase occured. We eventually caught up with the thieves but they had disposed of my wallet by then. The stall holders were keen to dispense their own justice but I managed to convince them that doing so would probably cause them trouble. The thieves were sent packing with a few slaps and pushes and a warning that if they were seen in the market again they might meet with a more painful unfortunate accident. Luckily for me, my wallet was handed into the police almost immediately. This was a relief as it had my Id card and various bank cards in it. Replacing them would have been a pain.

Fair enough. Our starting points are based upon such a completely different set of assumptions that I doubt that either of us will be able to convince the other of their case.

I would have thought so too, but JonnyF seems to take umbrage at the suggestion that some people might be racist/ xenophobic, so imo it needed restarting.

Maybe we should also sell Putin this type of equipment?

Unfortunately, she was in office long enough to spook the markets and tarnish further the UK's international standing.

Wonders never cease. For once, we agree.

France's borders total nearly 4,000km. There are natural barriers in places e.g. the Alps but nevertheless, imo it would be all but impossible for France to reinforce their borders to the extent that illegal migration is eliminated. Even if this were somehow possible, there would also be a huge opportunity cost in diverting resources to do so. It is a similar story throughout the rest of Europe. Imo the problem needs to be tackled at source i.e. implementing measures where the illegal migrants originate from. However, I have no idea what these measures might look like.

Factually incorrect as usual, John Boy. I do not label everyone a racist. I also accept that there are many Brexiters who are neither racist or xenophobic. Nevertheless, I also believe that there are some Brexiters who are racist and/or xenophobic. Perhaps the reason that some people are irritated by being labelled 'racist' is that it is a bit too close to the truth for comfort? All conjecture on my part of course.

That may well be the case sometimes but not always. I would suggest that 'Brexit in a Changing Europe' is relatively unbiased. Some authors may sometimes display bias but the Director, Anand Menon, is very careful not to appear judgemental or bias. You stated at the outset that this poll was a measure of the public's perception of the success of Brexit, not whether Brexit was actually a success. However, you agreed that public perception is important and should be one of the criteria by which the success of Brexit should be judged. But if the public's perception is wrong then surely it shouldn't be included in a set of criteria aimed at establishing the success of Brexit? It might be argued that a perception cannot be 'right' or 'wrong' but, in that case I would suggest that it does not help answer the question about Brexit's success, so again why include it in the set of criteria? Apologies. I should be more careful with my choice of words. By 'quick look', I meant reading the 'Abstract' and/or 'Executive Summary' and/or 'Introduction' and/or 'Conclusions' and/or 'Recommendations'. Usually 10-15 pages. 'Quick' given that the full reports are often 100+ pages. Imo a great deal can be gauged from reading these (relatively) few pages contained in the sections described above. Would you agree? 👍

(Our previous posts crossed) So we agree that the public's perception of Brexit is negative (and important): The overwhelming body of evidence from academia, industry and government suggests that Brexit has had a net negative impact. "If it walks like a duck, etc ...."

Which begs the question: Why pose the Brexit question to the public in the first place given that it is so complex and they couldn't hope to know whether the outcome would be successful or not? But your previous paragraph suggests otherwise? You seemingly also dismiss research conclusions as no criterion by which to judge the success of Brexit? What criteria would you suggest? I would. That was a rather unfortunate omission of a word. My original sentence should, of course, have read: "I am NOT suggesting that it is the only criterion... " (caps added for emphasis)

I know the majority of the reports which I linked conclude that Brexit has had a net negative effect. You would know that also if you looked at them. What is "it"? The success of Brexit? You indicated previously that you did not think that the public's perception was unimportant. So apart from polling how do we measure that perception?

So what point are you trying to make? And within the context of Brexit? Is the public perception of its' success, (one of) a suitable set of criteria by which to judge it? On its' own, no. But it might be one of a set of criterion.

There you go: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/?_sft_theme=the-economics-of-brexit The 'UK in a Changing Europe' site (2nd link) contains an extremely large number of reports. I can't claim to have read more than snippets from a handful of the reports, however, the overwhelming view appears to support the contention that Brexit has had a negative effect in a number of ways on the UK.

So are you saying that the public's perception of the relative success of a political act is either a) unimportant and/or b) not a suitable criterion by which to judge the success of that act? (Note: I am suggesting that it is the only criterion).