To want Brexit be reversed

Brexit had an impact on refugees crossing the Channel in boats.

Unless you can provide evidence otherwise?

The boat thing comes up a lot but it’s more to do with lorries and suffocation risk which the public reacted to causing a clamp down.

Those 4* hotels are basic rooms often shared, not luxury.

Where would you prefer to house them, tents like Jenkyns is proposing?

Befote 2018, boat crossings weren't recorded as they were so rare

And immigrants don't get benefits

We don't need to stop immigration. We need to stop unskilled immigration by raising the earnings a person has to earn to live in UK. Atm people are coming in waiting in restaurants and their employers are stating they are skilled yet pay them minimal wage. Anyone earning less than £40k shouldn't be allowed in. We need to focus on illegal immigration and stop putting illegal immigrants I to 4* hotels costing £145 per night. 11k illegal immigrants come over on boats since KS has been in power. That's up 40 percent on previous year. There should be a ban on immigrants claiming benefits until they have paid into our tax system for 5 years.

It's a step in the right direction undoing the damage Brexit has caused.

TBH, a well thought-out deal with Mumsnet users would raise £25bn in gin and cosmetics sales.

Sir Keir Starmer has struck Britain’s biggest post-Brexit trade deal, hailing a “landmark” agreement with India that will boost trade with the country by £25.5bn.
In what the prime minister is billing as a major coup, he said the agreement, which focuses on whisky, gin, cars and cosmetics, will boost the economy and cut prices for consumers.

I take that as a No

If you pay me £55,000.

@Rummly
pro-EU economists must have been very poor at making a case against Brexit

I've found this pro-remain economist being interviewed by Andrew Neil - the economist didn't do very well - quite amusing to watch;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03wftdw

Can you provide a report on how Brexit has benefitted the UK's economy?

Critique of another recent report here - in fact the BBC is criticised in how they presented it;

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-effects-of-brexit-are-still-being-misreported/

You’d need a few takes and a cross section. It’s good if people respond to a report.

Even if her anecdote is correct (although probably exaggerated) it's frankly unbelievable that Maitlis and her colleagues did not robustly challenge everyone who appeared on the programme. Of course they did. Sour grapes.

You can't hold a referendum and then only present one side. Presumably most economists thought there would be varying degrees of negative economic effects in the event of Scottish Independence as well - does Emily Maitlis think the pro-independence team should have been hidden away?

That particular report has been strongly criticised here;

https://capx.co/sadiq-khans-brexit-figures-are-straight-out-of-fantasyland

Not to mention that Sadiq Khan paid £55,000 for the report.

The article I took the figures from specified they were pre-Covid figures - so tax year 2019/20 ending March 2020. Not a direct benefit from Brexit but delivered all the same.

A trade deal with India could be good but dear God why do we have to subsidise Indian workers who have been seconded to the UK - and their employers- as they are going to be exempt from NI contributions for up to three years? That's so tone deaf when we've just had a hike on NI.
And well... of course it will mean more immigration. Not a problem with me but will be for some.

But they should be able to have a discussion without the name calling and general BS that was and still is around now.
And lets be honest the remain campaign was shite and most remainers arguments on here stopped at immigration and name calling.

There were very few that even tried to get passed that.

That isn't true at all. The leaflet that the government sent out to every household in the UK said "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.".
I don't know what would have happened if leave and won the vote but the government and then said "sorry, we aren't leaving". It would have destroyed all faith in democracy.

Regarding your last paragraph, @Winter2020 , which you added with your edit, are you saying that it is an acceptable catch-all for all illegal migrants, that if they are young, lone men we send them home on the basis they can’t be fleeing danger, because they are men, so we can reject their claims for asylum or humanitarian protection without further investigation? And if they are women and children, we should be inclined to welcome them in and give their children school places, because they must be in danger to have taken the risk of travelling here? Do you think it’s that simple to tell between genuine claims and bogus claims? Or would the next argument be that those with children are just looking for a free education for their kids and are therefore clearly economic migrants?

I see big trade deal with India in the news today.

All of these deals mean Brexit is further and further away from being reversed, which is good news.

Closer and friendly ties with Europe, certainly. Rejoin the EU ? No way.

@StMarie4methe point I was making is that it's maybe easier to swim against the tide and resist pressure on our own court judgements, if we aren't part of an EU which has powerful members whose laws are different and whose judgements contrast with our own. This might tirn out yo he a long term benefit of Brexit - idk, which is why I asked the question. The trans situation is an example but you have been deliberately obtuse and reduced it to fear of TW peeing in a loo with women, when you know full well that SC judgement was about safety, sport, women's refuges, access to money and services set aside for us!

It’s not entirely true that we have no spare housing. There are plenty of empty investment properties, second homes, holiday lets, houses with minimal occupancy. Everything is a political choice, not just immigration.

As for paying care workers more to look after the elderly - with a rapidly ageing population and capitalism as a model, that’s not going to work, as there is too much demand and we have not quite yet resorted to telling people they will only get any care if they can afford to pay for it themselves. Making people spend their every last penny on care until they are destitute rather than protecting their houses for inheritance might help for a while, until that source of wealth dries up, too, but there comes a point when even the wealth of the wealthy retiree runs out. Of course, we could go back to telling women their role is in the home, caring for their children and elderly relatives without bothering the state and without expecting pay for it, because a good woman does it for love and duty? Would that appeal?

That’s individual people though. Not necessarily leaders who understand the pros and cons.

It’s not surprising of course!

Absolutely this!

As the old newspaper quote goes,

If One Person Says It’s Raining and Another Says It’s Not Raining Then the Journalist Should Look Out the Window and Report the Truth