Brexit matters

[DynamicSpirit]

I would tend to agree but I also think it's disingenuous to pretend that ending Freedom of Movement is some unalloyed benefit when the rate of immigration has, if anything, increased since Brexit.

I would see that differently because the causes of the increase in non-EU immigration since Brexit don't seem to have anything to do with Brexit (other than that some of the increase in work visas granted might be explainable as employers recruiting from outside the EU where before they would have recruited for the same jobs within the EU - but since they'd have been recruiting anyway that can't explain an increase in total migration numbers). So the conclusion I draw is that we have a increase in non-EU migration that would have happened anyway, and therefore it's just as well that we were able to mitigate that increase by removing FOM.

You appreciate, I hope, that the the Government could cut immigration to somewhere around 50,000 per year tomorrow if it wished? It simply has to stop issuing visas. It won't, of course, because that would destroy higher education, and collapse the social care sector and the NHS.

Of course. But as you say the Government can't do that, and I would be appalled if it did: Aside from the impact on higher education, there's the question of things like people coming to join spouses that you cannot reasonably prevent without causing huge damage to people's lives.

And that's the dilemma we face. Immigration is too high, but it's made up largely of people who have very good reasons to come to the UK and who you therefore can't reasonably prevent from coming here. And in the context of Brexit, to my mind that confirms that FOM had to go: When you already have too many people who have strong reasons to come to the UK, you can't be adding to that by just opening the borders to anyone in the EU who feels like coming here, even though they actually don't have any existing connection with the UK or any legitimate reason that would satisfy our visa rules.

I think we should have a discussion about what level of immigration is desirable or sustainable (I'm not sure that the current level is sustainable in point of fact)

Yes I agree a discussion of what level of immigration is desirable would be good. It will also be difficult because it will inevitably lead to awful decisions about, now you'd decided X people/year is the maximum we can sustain, how do you decide who can come and who can't - in the context that, for any reasonable value of X, the number of people who desperately want to come here is likely to be many times X.

 

[sor]

When you already have too many people who have strong reasons to come to the UK, you can't be adding to that by just opening the borders to anyone in the EU who feels like coming here, even though they actually don't have any existing connection with the UK or any legitimate reason that would satisfy our visa rules.

Despite what years of UK newspaper propaganda might have suggested, EU FoM requires you to have the means to support yourself - ie you're working or you have sufficient means, or you can be deported. You cannot be a risk to public safety. EU member states can also require registration of FoM nationals (we never did). What aspect of that would not also be satisfied by our visa rules, aside from the huge cost/red tape for applicants and the lack of reciprocity? It's not a literal free for all.

The main benefit to business of course is that the visa can be used as a means to keep employees in line (and they can be paid less than a UK citizen or EU FoM resident would), whereas under FoM they'd have similar rights to citizens in terms of seeking new employment.

 

[DoubleLemon]

Partly. I think some of their ideas are correct, some are not. I would say their general focus on making it less attractive to come to the UK is in principle sound, but the imp...<snip>

The whole idea of the eu is the richer countries help increase the standard of living in the other member countries so they can become contributing members.

Ireland is now a contributing member. They have worked with the eu and are now helping other members. FoM would become as irrelevant as it is between England Scotland and Wales as there would be similar standards of living. As you see it as a problem it would be self correcting as the rules in place for FoM would have been enough if applied by the uk.

Why do you hate eu migration compared to non eu migration when it's been widely recognised that eu migrants contributed far more than they received?

The issues you blame on immigration like nhs and housing are all. Every single one. The uk governments fault and nothing to do with FoM.

 

[edwin_m]

We don't have a significant unemployment problem in the UK. Without immigrants, who would do the jobs?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why do you hate eu migration compared to non eu migration when it's been widely recognised that eu migrants contributed far more than they received?

I don't hate EU migration and I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from stating falsehoods about me like that. I feel exactly the same way towards an EU migrant as towards a non-EU migrant. And I also totally believe that allowing migration has many positives - not least the freedom it gives people. But you also have to be realistic about how much net migration any community can sustain and about the need for any country to be able to control the levels of migration. Plus it was grossly unfair under FOM that someone from say - Romania - could freely come and live in the UK with minimal conditions, basically just by showing a passport, while that person's neighbour from - say - Moldova - could only do likewise by satisfying onerous visa conditions (Conditions that were actually more onerous than they would have needed to be at the time if it wasn't for the vast numbers coming from the EU under FOM making it harder to accommodate non-EU citizens as well).

I could throw the question back at you and ask why, assuming you support FOM, you supported a system that made migration so unfair on non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens

The issues you blame on immigration like nhs and housing are all. Every single one. The uk governments fault and nothing to do with FoM.

To deny that immigration and FOM has contributed to the housing crisis is absurd and simply not living in the real World. I'm genuinely puzzled - why on Earth do so many people (usually, people who oppose Brexit) insist on believing this absurdity? It is basic maths that if the population grows, you need more houses - and basic economics that building houses is expensive and consumes a lot of resources and manpower. And if you are not able to magic up those additional houses at the rate at which the population is growing, then you are going to have a housing shortage. (Note that I don't deny that lack of planning etc. by the Government is also a problem).

 

[edwin_m]

I could throw the question back at you and ask why, assuming you support FOM, you supported a system that made migration so unfair on non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens

The EU has been seeking to bring more and more countries into the Western democratic model. Those countries that join receive benefits that include the ability of their citizens to travel to countries where there are higher incomes and labour shortages, and that contributes to the economic development of those countries. It's somewhat unfair to the citizens of countries just outside the EU, but those are potentially the next wave to join and if they want the benefits, the citizens should be voting and lobbying for their government to follow that path.

To deny that immigration and FOM has contributed to the housing crisis is absurd and simply not living in the real World. I'm genuinely puzzled - why on Earth do so many people (usually, people who oppose Brexit) insist on believing this absurdity? It is basic maths that if the population grows, you need more houses - and basic economics that building houses is expensive and consumes a lot of resources and manpower. And if you are not able to magic up those additional houses at the rate at which the population is growing, then you are going to have a housing shortage. (Note that I don't deny that lack of planning etc. by the Government is also a problem).

I ask again. Our economy has a need for a certain number of people to fill available jobs. And economic migrants won't arrive or won't stay if they can't find work - the clue's in the name. We don't have high unemployment so if there are no immigrants who would fill those jobs? With jobs creating economic activity housing and public services should follow, whether the people are UK-born or now. If those things aren't happening, that's largely the fault of the Westminster government.

I don't hate EU migration and I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from stating falsehoods about me like that.

You certainly seem to go on about it enough, but it always seems to be couched as the feelings of some nebulous other group of people whose views you don't share but do wish to amplify.

 

[najaB]

To deny that immigration and FOM has contributed to the housing crisis is absurd and simply not living in the real World.

As noted in other threads, immigration has made a bad situation worse. But the real problem is simply that we aren't building enough new homes in the places that they're needed.

 

[brad465]

Basically new inspections are being introduced on plants, fruit and vegetables etc. being imported into the UK, as part of the UK's Border Target Operating Model rules. It is alleged that the inspections will increase costs, and also that the UK doesn't have enough inspection facilities which will cause delays, risking food going off and having to be destroyed. I have no idea to what extent those fears/allegations are reasonable or to what extent they are scaremongering. I guess we'll find that out in the coming weeks. (I have to admit I'm also not clear on the precise reasons for the new inspections or therefore how well justified they are. The few newspaper reports I've been able to find about it seem to be full of scares, but very short of facts or decent analysis)

The checks are not all coming in at once, they are being phased in: Phase 1 is health certificates from this week, then the 30th April physical checks ramp up.

The farmers seem to be up in arms (ok tractors) in EUtopia due to EU policies individual governments are trying to implement.
I look at my M&S salad tomatoes; one week they come from the UK or Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Morocco.

Immigration is a big problem and it is physically impossible to build enough houses (same in Europe although they have more land); therefore you have to make better use of the existing housing stock via taxation but forcing people to downsize is very controversial. Council housing always suffered from that problem.
After the second world war a lot of houses were built but the country exported a million £10 poms and imported fewer Windrush people.
To encourage the birth rate child allowance was not paid for the first child and then paid for the second child onwards.

The problem is many of those who want immigration curbed are also advocates of economic growth, without realising that it's currently not possible to do the latter without the former in a low birth rate environment. This why many politicians around the world, including the Tories in the UK, have repeatedly pledged to cut immigration but not done so, and why despite FOM ending, immigration levels as a whole have not dropped, even considering the refugee influx and covid rebound in this decade so far.

 

[JonasB]

AIUI our opt outs were written into the treaties. If we ever rejoined it certainly creates an opportunity for lots of billable hours for international lawyers to argue the toss as to whether they'd continue to apply

No, all former opt outs have disappeared. The Lisbon Treaty is pretty clear on the issue, a former member that wants to rejoin gets no special treatment but has to go through the same process as any other country that wants to be a member.

 

[edwin_m]

No, all former opt outs have disappeared. The Lisbon Treaty is pretty clear on the issue, a former member that wants to rejoin gets no special treatment but has to go through the same process as any other country that wants to be a member.

There were some ideas being floated within the EU for some kind of associate membership which wouldn't carry all the obligations (or all the benefits), but I've not heard much about that recently. Perhaps that could be a compromise enough of the British could live with?

 

[Smidster]

The checks are not all coming in at once, they are being phased in: Phase 1 is health certificates from this week, then the 30th April physical checks ramp up.

And then even more fun from October (so the month before the election) when pretty much all fruit has been designated as being "medium" risk which involves even more checks and health certificates.

It will be carnage.

 

[sor]

No, all former opt outs have disappeared. The Lisbon Treaty is pretty clear on the issue, a former member that wants to rejoin gets no special treatment but has to go through the same process as any other country that wants to be a member.

References still exist in the treaties, eg https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12002E/TXT

I'm not a lawyer, but like I said, I'm sure if we ever rejoined that there'd be no shortage of them willing to argue it!

Even as a negotiation matter, Schengen would be a sticking point since it would also require Ireland to give up their own opt out.

 

[najaB]

Even as a negotiation matter, Schengen would be a sticking point since it would also require Ireland to give up their own opt out.

Though, the question there is if Ireland really wanted an opt out or was it just that the CTA was more useful to them than being in the Schengen zone would have been?

That could be used as an argument to allow us to retain/regain our opt out "We don't want to force Ireland to join".

 

[JamesT]

I suspect a bigger matter than opt outs for Schengen etc. would be the rebate the UK had. I wouldn't expect the existing members would be particularly enthused about having to fund a special deal for the UK again, but presumably the circumstances that led to the rebate in the first place still apply? (We have a relatively small agricultural sector so don't get much from CAP, but a relatively large VAT base that contributions are calculated from)

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect a bigger matter than opt outs for Schengen etc. would be the rebate the UK had. I wouldn't expect the existing members would be particularly enthused about having to fund a special deal for the UK again, but presumably the circumstances that led to the rebate in the first place still apply? (We have a relatively small agricultural sector so don't get much from CAP, but a relatively large VAT base that contributions are calculated from)

The CAP has evolved somewhat - we don't hear of butter mountains and wine lakes any more - but I couldn't say if that has made the EU's balance of finances more favourable to the UK.

 

[JonasB]

There were some ideas being floated within the EU for some kind of associate membership which wouldn't carry all the obligations (or all the benefits), but I've not heard much about that recently. Perhaps that could be a compromise enough of the British could live with?

That has been discussed, and is probably still being discussed. But so far it's just an idea.

References still exist in the treaties, eg https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12002E/TXT

I'm not a lawyer, but like I said, I'm sure if we ever rejoined that there'd be no shortage of them willing to argue it!

Yes, legislation sometimes contain obsolete paragraphs. The treaty is quite clear that a former member state that wants to rejoin will have to go through the same process as all other countries, there is no "VIP entry". All former opt outs are gone. New opt outs can of course be negotiated during the process, but the EU might also just tell the UK that if they're going to be a nuisance and demand special treatment they are not ready to rejoin.

Though, the question there is if Ireland really wanted an opt out or was it just that the CTA was more useful to them than being in the Schengen zone would have been?

As far as I know, Ireland stayed out of Schengen in order to not create a hard border on the island. I don't think they will be too opposed to joining Schengen in the future.

 

[Annetts key]

To deny that immigration and FOM has contributed to the housing crisis is absurd and simply not living in the real World. I'm genuinely puzzled - why on Earth do so many people (usually, people who oppose Brexit) insist on believing this absurdity? It is basic maths that if the population grows, you need more houses - and basic economics that building houses is expensive and consumes a lot of resources and manpower. And if you are not able to magic up those additional houses at the rate at which the population is growing, then you are going to have a housing shortage. (Note that I don't deny that lack of planning etc. by the Government is also a problem).

The so called "housing crisis" is due to many and multiple reasons.

Factors that affect it do include immigration. But also the birth rate, the death rate (important as people are typically living longer), the number of people who now choose to live in smaller family units or who live alone. The number of homes that are out of use, or unfit for use as homes. The number of new homes which are or are not being built (for whatever reason). The number of 'second' or holiday homes. And of course, the cost of home ownership and the cost of renting. And I have most likely missed some reasons.

There is also another factor, some immigration is temporary, people coming here for a job, making some money, and then returning back to their home country. While others want to settle here long term. Some of these may well be intending to live in a home with existing family or friends. Not all will therefore require a 'new' house / flat / apartment.

 

[class ep-09]

Should we start making 2 lists , one of brexit “ benefits “ and other for brexit “set backs “ and see which wins ?

Maybe then DynamicSpirit and like , wake up to the harm brexit is doing to this country ( I very much doubt DynamicSpirit comprehends the idiocy of brexit but you never know ).

Should someone start new tread with these 2 lists ?

Set backs :
1. End of FoM

 

[Annetts key]

Should we start making 2 lists , one of brexit “ benefits “ and other for brexit “set backs “ and see which wins ?

Maybe then DynamicSpirit and like , wake up to the harm brexit is doing to this country ( I very much doubt DynamicSpirit comprehends the idiocy of brexit but you never know ).

Should someone start new tread with these 2 lists ?

Set backs :
1. End of FoM

Knock yourself out.

One of the benefits of brexit was that we could have a lower rate of VAT. Well, that worked out well didn't it...
Unless you are buying from the E.U., in which case, now you have to pay U.K. VAT and a handling charge (and sometimes customs get it wrong and still charge you even though the seller is registered for U.K. VAT).

For some traders or individuals, trading across the U.K./E.U. "border" is now no longer worth the effort. Hence some items/goods are now harder to get, more expensive or not available.

 

[jon0844]

As noted in other threads, immigration has made a bad situation worse. But the real problem is simply that we aren't building enough new homes in the places that they're needed.

We never, ever, will build enough homes. Not even Labour will risk changing something whereby people's wealth is often measured by the property they own (many people may have little to no other savings). More homes will bring down prices, so it will be built slowly by an industry that has to maintain profits in challenging conditions (labour shortage, increased cost of materials etc).

We might build more homes if the population increased enough that they could increase production but still keep demand high, so I'd argue that if we allowed more immigration we might not really be any worse off because the only way to solve the housing crisis is to lower the population.

And then even more fun from October (so the month before the election) when pretty much all fruit has been designated as being "medium" risk which involves even more checks and health certificates.

It will be carnage.

People will just say we don't need foreign fruit and claim it as a Brexit benefit, like the people who say it's fine to pay for roaming charges because you only go on holiday one fortnight a year etc.

Although not everyone is for these extra checks.

Video description: Former Brexit Opportunites Minister and Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg attempted to disown a core aspect of Brexit on his GB News show. He seemed to be advocating for open borders when it came to goods coming into GB.

 

[sor]

Interesting article from the graun. If it's to be believed it appears we're all (GB included) moving ever closer to the EU as part of the restoration of NI devolution.

Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked?

DUP approves post-Brexit legislation, meaning devolved government could soon be functioning again

www.theguardian.com

What is in the deal?​

Donaldson said it would end “dynamic alignment” whereby future changes in EU law would have to be observed in Northern Ireland.

Pending the deal’s publication on Wednesday, it appears that Sunak has offered to keep Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) aligned with European standards if the DUP returned to Stormont.

All new laws at Westminster would be checked to ensure they did not compromise unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, meaning no separate rules or labels for goods that remain in the region.

Could be inaccurate of course - I guess we'll see what gets published by UK gov - but it seems we're hitting the point at which we've taken all the downsides of leaving and getting none of the perceived benefits. Last year's climbdown on CE marked goods was also another significant step, one taken after businesses spent so much time and money attempting to comply to the new rules.

 

[geoffk]

The news from Stormont is encouraging. The UK Parliament will surely approve the new deal even if the hardline ERG votes against it. However it still needs EU approval.

 

[renegademaster]

With all due respect, a lot of what the politicians say about it is twaddle. How much of what you have written is taken from what politicians say?

Remember, members of the house of parliament, that is MPs, are supposed to be lay people. Granted, some do actually know a lot more and may be very knowledgeable in their own area.

If you use the argument that you want something (say the economy) to be sufficiently aligned, you are actually just making an excuse not to do it instead of being clear and transparent and saying you don't agree.

Any fool can come up with any number of so called 'tests', and then use the 'failure' as an excuse.

The value of the pound will fluctuate. That's the whole point of a floating currency exchange system. And there is unlikely to ever be a 'right' level at which the U.K. would join, because that would require people here to agree to what that level should or would be. And those agains are never going to agree with those that want to join.

The 'relative competitiveness' is not fixed. Our economy is not fixed. Prices of goods, services, labour and any and everything change constantly. As does the actual rate of inflation for individual goods, services and labour (rather than the official rate like CPI which is a 'basket' of items, so is subject to averaging).

Furthermore, prices of goods, services, labour etc. are in part related to the cost of fuel, and fuel (natural gas, oil, oil deprived fuels, lubricants, plastics etc.) are traded at international rates.

Devaluing your currency is not a win. The relative value of the currency affects imports and exports. If the value swings in one direction, exporters do better and importers do worse. If it swings in the other direction, importers do better and exporters do worse. Long term, both directions are worst for us as a country. The real answer is actually the policies of the government and what they actually do to fix the actual problems. Devaluing your currency will not fix fundamental internal problems in a country. One of which is a government spending more money than which they have tax income. Both the Conservatives and Labour are guilty of this or have been in the past.

Another is allowing the infrastructure or services (NHS for example) to degrade or become worse. The Conservatives are very guilty of these later points. They go on about getting people back to work but don't want to do much to improve the NHS so that workers who can't work due to medical reasons can be treated sooner. If you are waiting for months for treatment, that's months that you are off work.

The birth rate and immigration also have an effect (if the birth rate is low, immigration is a good thing for the economy and therefore the country).


Sorry, I did not mean all the older generation. I should not have been so generic.


Instead we have even more people from non-EC countries. The fundamental facts are that (1) you can't stop immigration using the methods put forward by the current government, the Conservatives are just using it for political reasons, (2) as a country, we need immigration, (3) people come here for a better life, to earn money and given the amount of effort they put into their journey, don't expect whatever any government does to make any significant difference.

Rather than wasting money on trying to stop illegal immigration, it would be far more productive to spend that money on processing legal immigration, on council housing, on the NHS, on schools and on other infrastructure.

Being liberal with the money printer in a way that being in the Euro wouldnt let us , like how America coped alot better with covid than most of Europe, can help dig you out of a temporary hole

This, exactly!

Of course, the other way to achieve the same effect is helping them make where they are less bad.

That simply isnt true and you know it

 

[class ep-09]

Hey , less immigration…

Or is it ?

So Much For Brexit - immigration to make UK population grow 6m by 2036

Ex-home secretary Suella Braverman leads Tory right in calling for PM to control net migration

www.independent.co.uk

Knock yourself out.

One of the benefits of brexit was that we could have a lower rate of VAT. Well, that worked out well didn't it...
Unless you are buying from the E.U., in which case, now you have to pay U.K. VAT and a handling charge (and sometimes customs get it wrong and still charge you even though the seller is registered for U.K. VAT).

For some traders or individuals, trading across the U.K./E.U. "border" is now no longer worth the effort. Hence some items/goods are now harder to get, more expensive or not available.

So that is another set back .

Btw - I do need to knock myself out , I think we are on this same page .

 

[najaB]

That simply isnt true and you know it

Yes it is. Well targeted development aid can go a long way to reducing the need for people to emigrate.

If I have a successful small/micro business at home, why would I give people smugglers thousands of dollars to go to the UK and clean toilets?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Should we start making 2 lists , one of brexit “ benefits “ and other for brexit “set backs “ and see which wins ?

That actually wouldn't be a bad idea. And for what it's worth, I've absolutely no problem with that there are both benefits and dis-benefits of Brexit (and likewise both benefits and dis-benefits of FOM). I think it's inevitably going to be very subjective and different people will come to different conclusions about whether the benefits outweigh the dis-benefits or vice versa, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that. My beef is with those people (of whom there seem to be quite a lot in this thread) who blindly refuse to acknowledge that there were any benefits at all from Brexit or from ending FOM - leading to such absurdities as people apparently claiming that having a couple of million extra people in the UK due to FOM would have no impact at tall on availability of enough housing!) I think you'll find that when I post to defend Brexit, it's often in response to someone posting some such absurdity.

Maybe then DynamicSpirit and like , wake up to the harm brexit is doing to this country ( I very much doubt DynamicSpirit comprehends the idiocy of brexit but you never know ).

Congratulations! You win today's prize for the most condescending comment.

 

[brad465]

That actually wouldn't be a bad idea. And for what it's worth, I've absolutely no problem with that there are both benefits and dis-benefits of Brexit (and likewise both benefits and dis-benefits of FOM). I think it's inevitably going to be very subjective and different people will come to different conclusions about whether the benefits outweigh the dis-benefits or vice versa, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that. My beef is with those people (of whom there seem to be quite a lot in this thread) who blindly refuse to acknowledge that there were any benefits at all from Brexit or from ending FOM - leading to such absurdities as people apparently claiming that having a couple of million extra people in the UK due to FOM would have no impact at tall on availability of enough housing!) I think you'll find that when I post to defend Brexit, it's often in response to someone posting some such absurdity.

There are benefits, but from what I can tell many of them haven't actually been enabled. Border control seems to be the main one, we supposedly control all immigration now, but the net migration number keeps going up. Also I believe abolishing VAT on energy bills is a Brexit benefit, but even amidst an energy bills crisis this hasn't been implemented.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There are benefits, but from what I can tell many of them haven't actually been enabled. Border control seems to be the main one, we supposedly control all immigration now, but the net migration number keeps going up. Also I believe abolishing VAT on energy bills is a Brexit benefit, but even amidst an energy bills crisis this hasn't been implemented.

Yeah, and I'd say to some extent that is to be expected because a lot of the potential benefits that Brexiters perceive are long term things that are to do with the UK in principle being able to do things how it wants in ways that suit UK circumstances rather than having to accept a one-size-fits-all EU approach. But changing all the laws etc. can take years, so if those benefits materialize, it's likely to be on a timescale of 10-20 years. On the other hand many of the dis-benefits are specifically associated with the period of transition/adjustment to the new situation, and so are going to look at their worst in the period we've just experienced: Immediately before/after Brexit (Indeed, one obvious example of that was the 3 years of Government paralysis between 2016-2019 when the UK Government was almost unable to do anything else except argue about Brexit - which must surely have been one of the biggest dis-benefits).

 

[najaB]

one obvious example of that was the 3 years of Government paralysis between 2016-2019 when the UK Government was almost unable to do anything else except argue about Brexit - which must surely have been one of the biggest dis-benefits

I'd disagree that was a Brexit disbenefit, but rather just another home-grown, self-inflicted bash to the head.

A responsible government would have figured out what Brexit meant *before* pulling the trigger.

 

[class ep-09]

Yeah, and I'd say to some extent that is to be expected because a lot of the potential benefits that Brexiters perceive are long term things that are to do with the UK in principle being able to do things how it wants in ways that suit UK circumstances rather than having to accept a one-size-fits-all EU approach. But changing all the laws etc. can take years, so if those benefits materialize, it's likely to be on a timescale of 10-20 years. On the other hand many of the dis-benefits are specifically associated with the period of transition/adjustment to the new situation, and so are going to look at their worst in the period we've just experienced: Immediately before/after Brexit (Indeed, one obvious example of that was the 3 years of Government paralysis between 2016-2019 when the UK Government was almost unable to do anything else except argue about Brexit - which must surely have been one of the biggest dis-benefits).

More nonsense , pies in the sky and unicorns tomorrow .

Country was told that we will have benefits straight way not in 20-30 or according to Mogg 50 years time - like £350mil per week to NHS after stopping paying to EU budget or immediate lower prices for food (lol).
Meanwhile our GDP is 4% down , businesses are tied in red tape , UK must follow EU rules if it wants to sell anything to the EU , but has no say in those and even if business sells outside of the EU , there is no point of making two separate products for EU and rest of the world as it raises costs .
UK citizens have been denied right to Freedom of Movement , while EU citizens can still enjoy and use it within the block + EEA and Switzerland . Not to mention that settled in the UK citizens of EU have more rights than UK citizens .