RayC

Seems like a perfectly rational argument (assuming it's legal). Postscript: Jumbo1968 says that this is now illegal post-Brexit?

I fear my limited lifespan may prevent me from checking all 4,430,000,000 results but I doubt many will show a positive opportunity cost for Brexit. Even the most generous estimate of Brexit 'savings' (Johnson's £19bn/year) is dwarfed by the cost in lost output, £100bn/year (FT estimate).

An excellent description of how the market works.

I disagree. Eastern European workers were not 'press ganged' into coming to the UK. On the whole, they came for the simple reason that their earnings were higher in the UK than their homelands. That might have been the effect. Perhaps the rate was set too low?

I think that you raise some interesting points. Imo the growth in the bureaucratic nature of the EEC/ EU was (is?) an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of greater globalization. An example: I don't know this for a fact but I would suggest that a car, which was manufactured in Germany in 1972, was comprised of +/-2,000 components, which were themselves mainly sourced and manufactured in Germany. A car manufactured today apparently typically has 30,000 components sourced from all over the world. As a consequence of these changes, if the EU single market was/ is to work efficiently and equitably, then there must be rules and regulations governing the sourcing, quality, etc of those components. This example is for just one product: The EU bureaucracy had to grow; there was no alternative. Whether the membership of the EU should have increased so rapidly is another matter and I have some empathy with the view that it did/ has grown so quickly, especially given that this growth in membership happened so soon after the Euro came into being. Illegal immigration is still a problem in Europe so, by that measure, the EU as an organisation has failed. However, is it possible for it to succeed especially, as you point out, there are so many different views and policies among the member states?

No one likes their income to be cut but isn't the example you describe simply an example of how a market economy works? Whether that is a good thing is another matter. Brexit might solve the problem of wage deflation within the UK construction industry, but unless the concept of 'Global Britain' - which was a promised benefit of Brexit - is shelved it will be probably be transferred to another industry. Let's be optimistic and assume a free trade deal is done with India. The UK market will then be open to Indian IT companies who will undercut the rate paid to UK workers. Unless the UK becomes more insular, more protectionist and more command economy orientated, the market will dictate what is 'fair value'. Brexit has not changed that.

What's your point?

I disagree although I would concede that post-Brexit any ambiguity has been erased. I don't like pedancy but look at Patel's quote: "For too long, EU rules have forced us to allow dangerous foreign criminals, who abuse our values and threaten our way of life, onto our streets." Clause (22) of the directive would have allowed the individuals to whom Patel was referring to be denied entry. However, in any event, how big a problem was this in reality? Were there that many criminals from EU member states running around the UK?

It was but this particular instance has nothing to do with that. These were, presumably, UK police procedures. Unless these procedures were part of EU legislation, I don't see how Brexit is relevant.

The topic title is: "Brexit has cracked Britain's economic foundations". Your comment is about a documentary showing how some UK police authorities dealt with some illegal immigrants. How does that relate to the topic or even the wider issue of Brexit?

Take your pick https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/issue/Brexit

What has that got to do with Brexit?

Correct. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32004L0038R(01) The relevant sections are (22) onwards. This directive - notably Section (22) - shows that Priti Patel's claim that "For too long, EU rules have forced us to allow dangerous foreign criminals, who abuse our values and threaten our way of life, onto our streets." is incorrect.

I'd heard of the 'Big Mac' index but must confess that I was unaware of this additional 'Mac' index, which measures the relative warmth of the UK population.

Agreed but democracy will also only work if the 'victors' take responsibility and accountability for their actions.

There's certainly a lot of deaf ears out there.

I have no idea how competent the French immigration/ police authorities are and I very much doubt that you do either. Do you think that illegal immigration is a problem unique to the UK and of French/ EU making? If so, you are wrong. It is a European problem. The EU had an estimated 600,000 illegal immigrants in 2020, most of whom were in France and Germany. Of course it was the result of government action. It was the result of a needless referendum called by Boy David in an attempt to shore up his own position. 3% of EU legislation had to be enacted against the UK's wishes. So some (most?) Leavers were xenophobes? Not true. EU member states made individual decisions about which vaccines to deploy. More xenophobia. That is just a rant which makes no sense at all.

Doesn't answer my question

So what the Government do then? Toss a coin to decide future strategy; stick their heads in the sand and hope for the best, or analyse the data and make an informed decision about what is best for the country? The answer seems obvious to me.

Strange that the majority of your post is about that very topic? Nevertheless.. You're probably right but not for the reason stated. There was certainly frustration on the part of the EU that - having seemingly agreed a deal - May was unable to convince her own party to back it. However, as politicians themselves, EU leaders probably had some empathy for her. The animosity and bitterness was fuelled by Johnson's lack of sincerity in reneging on the Agreement and his generally hostile attitude towards the EU. A case of the EU looking after their own members' interests in a time of crisis. Little bit more complex than simple French inertia and incompetence. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/26/not-doing-enough-france-senses-policing-alone-wont-stop-risky-crossings The fundamental difference being that the Russia/ Ukraine war was outside of the UK government's control. The problems caused by Brexit were completely avoidable and self-inflicted. The 'Irish Protocol' forms part of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement What makes you so sure about this? Most of the rhetoric coming out of Brussels suggests otherwise. Hopefully, that will be the case and will occur sooner rather than later. The labour shortage and the problems caused by it could at least been mitigated if freedom of movement for EU nationals still existed. I have the utmost sympathy for UK companies. Throughout the Brexit negotiations, they had to operate in a climate of almost complete uncertainty. Subsequently, Covid and the war in Ukraine have, of course, had a great impact but UK businesses haven't been helped by the lack of a strategic vision by successive UK governments. I imagine that nowadays most UK companies think very hard about tendering for new work (especially if that war has an overseas' element), and that those that do build a large amount of contingency into their bids. At least we agree on one point.

Come now! No need for false modesty. I'm sure that you have posted more than 10 links which essentially tell the same story. Imo it is good to quote more than one source but >10 is overkill. Actually, my original post should have been clearer. Have you any NEW evidence to support your contention that this corruption runs deep? My apologies for being ambiguous previously.

Chomper has listed some of the reasons and plenty of data has been presented on numerous occasions in the past to support this view. The justification for Brexit seems to rest on the premise that Remainers can't predict the future. Hardly a compelling argument, especially as this truism applies equally to Brexiters.

You should alert the Belgium police. I'm sure that they are keen to gather as much evidence as possible. Can you share any of your evidence on a public forum?

Yes. It appears that the European authorities are keen to get to the bottom of this asap.

As we have left the EU how a figure based on us being a member be anything other than an estimate. It can't logically be an 'actual'. Whether the author is a 'Leaver' or a 'Remainer' should be irrelevant. The important factors in any model are having a sound methodology and realistic assumptions. It might be too early to gauge the full impact of Brexit, but the initial data almost invariably suggests that it has had a negative economic effect. What reasons are there to think that this trend will be reversed?