IN most life situations, careering on regardless with a course of action in the face of mounting evidence that it is harmful is unwise in the extreme.

Usually, confronted with the facts, people will change their course sooner or later, although there are sadly some circumstances in which such evasive action proves to be beyond the power of individuals.

The UK Government, while in disarray, is far from powerless.

However, amid mounting evidence of the harm that is being and will be done to the country and its people by the phenomenally ill-judged Brexit vote, the Conservative Government continues headlong towards the European Union exit door. The “rationale” offered is that “the people have spoken”, even if some have changed their minds as reality has dawned, or some nonsense about “taking back control”.

READ MORE: Theresa May uses Brexit tour to pledge more resources for NHS and schools

It is a curious situation. The board of a company which had decided on a strategy that turned out, on closer examination of the facts, to be potentially catastrophic would, like most individuals, change its course. Such a change of tack by directors would ensure those they lead do not suffer the consequences of taking the wrong path. Yet the UK Government seems determined to lead the country towards Brexit, which is now less than a year away, for better or worse. “For better” may be superfluous.

And it is interesting that it is not just the independent research and economic surveys that are setting out the damage that is being and will be done, but crucially also work commissioned by the UK Government itself. So the situation becomes curiouser and curiouser.

This week has seen the release of a serious piece of work by the Migration Advisory Committee, an independent, non-departmental public body. Last July, Home Secretary Amber Rudd asked the MAC to set out current patterns of immigration from the European Economic Area, which comprises the 28 EU member states as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and the impact on the UK’s economy and society.

In an interim report, the committee says: “The MAC view is that it is important to be clear about what the consequences of restricting migration would be. Lower migration would very likely lead to lower growth in total employment, and lower output growth.”

READ MORE: Demographic change will soon turn most of UK against Brexit

Its report highlights pervasive uncertainty about Brexit among businesses relating in large part to future UK immigration policy.

The MAC declares: “Employers in all sectors are concerned about the prospects of future restrictions on EEA migration. The high-skilled are concerned about having EEA workers subject to the current non-EEA system, which they do not hold in high regard.

“The lower-skilled are concerned that the impact of restrictions is likely to be greatest on them...Some may regard this employer opposition as sufficient proof that any restrictions are misguided.”

The MAC report highlights Scotland’s dependence on net immigration from other EEA countries for population growth.

It observes projections from the Office for National Statistics “suggest that if EU net migration was zero, the population in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would stop growing and even fall in the next 20 years”.

The report also points out migration can help “alleviate the problem of an ageing population”.

The MAC, which received written responses from 417 organisations, businesses and individuals in the public and private sectors, from small firms to multinationals, says UK employers have increased their employment of EEA migrant labour, with the accession of new member states in 2004 bringing “a marked change”. Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined the EU in 2004.

Countdown to Brexit: The key issues you need to know

The committee observes EEA migration before 2004 was primarily high-skilled. It adds this has continued but migration from new member states has been heavily concentrated in lower-skilled jobs.

It states that, in many lower-skilled sectors, 2004 marked a point at which “high-quality workers became available at a reasonable wage”.

The MAC notes some people from other EEA countries have already been discouraged from coming to the UK in the wake of the Brexit vote, leading to recruitment difficulties. Immigration to the UK from other EU countries has plunged since the Leave vote in June 2016.

The committee says: “The fall in the value of the pound following the referendum result and the perception that the UK is a less attractive place to be for a migrant appear to have made it harder to recruit EEA migrants in many areas…

“Migrants have a choice and it cannot be taken for granted they will choose to come to the UK: migration flows can change very rapidly, as the fall in EEA net migration since the referendum shows.”

The MAC points out “what is best for an individual employer is not necessarily best for the welfare of the resident population”, noting the latter is the criterion it uses when evaluating migration policy.

It notes its final report will consider “the impacts of EEA migration of different skill levels”.

The MAC declares reduced migration would “not necessarily mean lower growth in output per head, which is more closely connected to living standards”, but adds: “There is no doubt that some types of migration can raise productivity and output growth may be desirable if the extra output improves the Government finances.”

Given the Conservatives’ abject failure to shore up the public finances after the global financial crisis and ensuing recession, any benefit from extra output arising from migration should surely be seized with both hands. And increased productivity is crucial to UK living standards.

The Brexiters in the Cabinet have already this year had to deal with the forced publication of a paper entitled “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing”, which laid out the huge cost of Brexit. The paper confirmed staying in the single market would be by far the least economically damaging of the Brexit options.

The MAC interim report, all things considered, must be another blow to the Brexiters. However, as with the pile of other evidence mounting up, and given xenophobia has sadly never been far from the Brexit debate, the MAC report seems unlikely to change this Brexit pantomime’s sorry plot.