5 minutes ago, superal said:

If you cannot stand the heat , get out of the kitchen

Another sign of a serial deflector is that instead of actually addressing specific points raised, they resort to generalized formulas and sayings to counter criticism. In other words, you've got nothing.

44 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Any EU national that was refused entry before Brexit would be seeking to have that decsion overturned and made null and void using directive 2004/38/ec via the EU courts Likewise any country that refused entry would need to refer to directive 2004/38/ec

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.

1 hour ago, superal said:

Indeed , that has always been a problem with smuggled illegal entrants . I have watched TV documentaries where the UK immigration enter a commercial work place and challenge workers for their work visa and passports which some do not have and they are taken to a police station , questioned and released under caution to report weekly but they just vanish to another town . It is really a farce . Maybe under the new Braverman laws they can be given a free flight to Rwanda ?   

What has that got to do with Brexit?

1 minute ago, RayC said:

What has that got to do with Brexit?

Nothing beyond Brexit hasn’t cured it.

On 12/26/2022 at 2:07 AM, Bluespunk said:

Uh oh…the brexiteers are not going to react well to those facts. 
 

From the OP

 

“The UK chose Brexit in a referendum, but the government then chose a particularly hard form of Brexit, which maximized the economic cost,” said Michael Saunders, a senior adviser at Oxford Economics and former Bank of England official. “Any hope for economic upside from Brexit is pretty much gone.”

 

So no sunny uplands then. 

Neither is a lot of other reading by the look of it,  they have only read the negative.

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

What has that got to do with Brexit?

A reply to another member . Please read the complete content then you may understand .  

4 hours ago, superal said:

and where is your link to prove your statement and I do not want to see a journalistic link

Take your pick

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

1 minute ago, superal said:

A reply to another member . Please read the complete content then you may understand .  

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?

8 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Neither is a lot of other reading by the look of it,  they have only read the negative.

The facts speak for themselves.
 

Economically brexit has been damaging for the U.K.  

1 minute ago, RayC said:

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?

 

 

Wasn't Immigration a 'wider issue of Brexit' for some.

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

The facts speak for themselves.
 

Economically brexit has been damaging for the U.K.  

Same old over and over again that was known from the start. 

22 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

It would appear Priti Patel's claims were correct

. Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 entitled ‘General principles’ and which is found in Chapter VI – Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, provides:

‘1. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens … on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These grounds shall not be invoked to serve economic ends.

2. Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.

The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted. …’

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62007CC0033

1 minute ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

Wasn't Immigration a 'wider issue of Brexit' for some.

Immigration was said to be the single issue vis-a-vis Brexit. Scotland and Ulster voted against Brexit, according to the BBC 95% of immigration into the UK has been into England. That would be 9.5 million of the 10 million foreign-born people living in the UK.

3 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

Wasn't Immigration a 'wider issue of Brexit' for some.

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.

Troll emoticon only, post and reply removed.

12 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Same old over and over again that was known from the start. 

Really?

 

Because a lot of brexiteer proponents and propaganda said otherwise.
 

Nonetheless, the impact of brexit on the U.K.s economic difficulties is the subject of this thread and any discussion of it is valid. 
 

No one is forcing you to take part. 

my only 2 comments.... 1= only a blind would not have seen it coming and 2

     = I told you so and repeated it many & many times to the brexiteers, they (some) still not agreeing/dealing with the reality   555

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Another instance that further establishes your credentials as a serial deflector.

And he used to flick rice crispies at his bro from the kitchen table top.

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Asylum claimants found to have destroyed their documents can be prosecuted under a 2004 law passed by the Tony Blair government.

However, Ministry of Justice data shows a dramatic decline in the number of prosecutions of this offence since 2005. One dataset even indicated that there were only two prosecutions in 2019 for being unable to produce an immigration document at an asylum or leave interview (a year when 1,840 are known to have crossed the Channel in boats).

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/02/24/98-of-channel-boat-migrants-have-no-passport

How is anyone going to have any solid proof of that? The Blair governments quadrupled the numbers of imported workers with easy visas, losing or devaluing the jobs of existing British workers - all this was not mentioned in New Labour's election manifest, of course.   

3 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

It would appear Priti Patel's claims were correct

. Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 entitled ‘General principles’ and which is found in Chapter VI – Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, provides:

‘1. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens … on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These grounds shall not be invoked to serve economic ends.

2. Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.

The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted. …’

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62007CC0033

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?

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Really?

 

Because a lot of brexiteer proponents and propaganda said otherwise.
 

Nonetheless, the impact of brexit on the U.K.s economic difficulties is the subject of this thread and any discussion of it is valid. 
 

No one is forcing you to take part. 

Repeat same old as much as you by all means.

1 hour ago, Andrew65 said:

Immigration was said to be the single issue vis-a-vis Brexit. Scotland and Ulster voted against Brexit, according to the BBC 95% of immigration into the UK has been into England. That would be 9.5 million of the 10 million foreign-born people living in the UK.

What's your point?

On construction sites in the U.K., foreigners were not in general being paid the recognised rates of pay, they were being used as cheap labour and in some cases foreign companies were able to compete for projects bringing their own labour at reduced rates which the U.K. companies couldn’t compete with all of which was allowed under EU Law. 

There were numerous protests mostly in the north of England where local labour couldn’t get a job because of the influx of labour from the E.U. , the rates were in general 50% of the recognised rates and the EU. Labour were being packed into Guest Houses or rented property. None of their earnings was subject to U.K. tax etc meaning a loss of revenue.

There is a skill shortage, I have no problem of labour coming from where ever as long as they are being paid the going rate. Employers were more than happy to import cheap labour rather than pay to train U.K. staff.

The U.K. economy is suffering now because not only do we have a skill shortage but a shortage of workers in the Health Care and hospitality industry as people who voted were very short sighted,we actually need migration. 
 

1 hour ago, Jumbo1968 said:

On construction sites in the U.K., foreigners were not in general being paid the recognised rates of pay, they were being used as cheap labour and in some cases foreign companies were able to compete for projects bringing their own labour at reduced rates which the U.K. companies couldn’t compete with all of which was allowed under EU Law. 

There were numerous protests mostly in the north of England where local labour couldn’t get a job because of the influx of labour from the E.U. , the rates were in general 50% of the recognised rates and the EU. Labour were being packed into Guest Houses or rented property. None of their earnings was subject to U.K. tax etc meaning a loss of revenue.

There is a skill shortage, I have no problem of labour coming from where ever as long as they are being paid the going rate. Employers were more than happy to import cheap labour rather than pay to train U.K. staff.

The U.K. economy is suffering now because not only do we have a skill shortage but a shortage of workers in the Health Care and hospitality industry as people who voted were very short sighted,we actually need migration. 
 

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.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

A shrinking economy and anemic productivity will likewise determine wages and importantly public service budgets.

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Repeat same old as much as you by all means.

I’ll post as I see fit, regardless of how much the truth hurts. 

 

If it’s relevant, brexit will be referred to. 

No worries. 

3 hours ago, Andrew65 said:

Immigration was said to be the single issue vis-a-vis Brexit. Scotland and Ulster voted against Brexit, according to the BBC 95% of immigration into the UK has been into England. That would be 9.5 million of the 10 million foreign-born people living in the UK.

Which % in London, which voted against Brexit?

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Which % in London, which voted against Brexit?

What's so special about London? It's only about 13% of the UK population.

35 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

If the Tories were so concerned about workers' wages, they could raise the minimum wage. And enforce the payment of them.

40 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

I would say it was exploitation of the EU workers, the worst thing that was introduced in the U.K. was the minimum wage, employers know that’s all they legally have to pay to anyone.