RayC

Unfortunately, we never seem to arrive at these "sunny uplands". -1: Latest percentage estimate of the annual hit to UK GDP as a result of Brexit?????

Of course, silly me. Nothing to do with the 'Flat Earthers' (ERG) consistently undermining and voting against May? No one ever mentioned taking accountability and responsibility for the mess that we created! Why restart the whole thing? Why didn't the UK government simply walk away with 'No deal'? "No deal is better than a bad deal"; wasn't that one of the Leavers' favourite mantas? Just imagine how the UK economy would be flying now if Johnson had had the courage to do so????

Sunny uplands, here we come! Err.... any idea when we might arrive there?

And if we had remained in the EU, other things being equal, we would be doing better than our European neighbours.

Been a while since you played the 'Balotelli card'. In case you've forgotten, the 'Withdrawal Agreement' was agreed and signed off by your hero, Johnson, a Brexiter.

Fair play to the marketing departments of Netflix and Buck Palace. Both are playing a blinder here.

Brexit is far from down and dusted. The Withdrawal Agreement has still not been fully implemented and there are ongoing discussions about it, especially the Protocol. And that's just the goods side of things. Discussions about services haven't even been touched upon in any meaningful way. This is a huge issue for the UK. Services make up +/-80% of the UK's GDP and the value of UK service related exports to the EU in 2019 was +/-£14bn. A sizeable proportion of this was financial services which Paris, Dublin, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, etc. have their eye on. Politics dictates that we are highly unlikely to rejoin the EU in the immediate future (imo not before 2030 at the very earliest and more realistically the mid-30s) but, hopefully, by continuing to moan, our current political leaders will acknowledge the monumental act of economic self-harm that the UK has inflicted upon itself. Perhaps they will then, at least, try to mitigate the effects rather than worsen the situation as the last two UK administrations seemed hellbent on doing.

It's the latter. I thought that you were complaining about the author of the article not referencing his sources, rather than the original poster not stating explicitly than the article comes from 'The Observer'. You're right; he doesn't but it also doesn't change the fact that Brexit has had negative effects for the UK economy.

None that I am aware of. However, according to the latest opinion polls many people have changed their minds. I have no idea whether they have been convinced by others or worked out things for themselves. Have you managed to personally to get any Remainers to change sides?

Indeed. But equally supporting them in their belief that Brexit was a good idea isn't going to make the UK a better place.

Fair enough. I'm 55 feeling 75! Actually almost 64. No idea how other 64-year olds feel; it will be my first time ????????

Ignoring the moral argument, probably counter-productive anyway. Alienates partners, weakens our influence on the world stage and probably has negative economic consequences to boot. That would weaken our security and, almost certainly, cost us more than it saves. Don't think that we have too many qualms about doing so as it is I'm sure that we will first chance that we get Again ignoring the moral aspect, they aren't that keen on engaging with us. I imagine that many immigrants would agree with you. The UK needs to speed up the process. Excellent idea but only (proper) ale/ stout???? Heavily tax lager and 'craft' beers to compensate for the loss of revenue. Would need French agreement but why not. I'd prefer to pay for motorcyclists to move to the Isle of Man.

Disagree. Very few things are irreversible. At the very least, don't make a bad situation worse: Johnson and Truss seemed determined to do just that. Small mercies: On first impressions, Sunak seems to be more pragmatic than his immediate predecessors as PM (although he hasn't had a major run in with 'Flat Earth Brigade' - aka the ERG - yet).

How's that going to help? What do you have in mind?

No one is denying that Covid and the war have had negative economic effects. In the case of the war, these effects are probably being felt more in mainland Europe than in the UK. And again the reply is that the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that Brexit has made a bad situation, worse. If the suggestion is that Brexit has made things worse for EU member states as well then, 'We are all poorer to one degree or another' doesn't sound like much of a justification to me.

You should re-read the article. Amongst other things, it mentions research which found that Brexit has added £6bn to the UK food bill, and that - according to a survey - a majority of the UK public now think that Brexit was a mistake. This is not opinion, it is reportage. If the research and polling was flawed, then that's fair criticism. Objecting to the message simply because it doesn't fit your own biased narrative isn't. Is the recession in the EU compounded by the effects of Brexit? Perhaps. But if so, surely it adds to the argument that Brexit is economically damaging? I will agree that the author is probably anti-Brexit; the overwhelming majority of economists are.

Come now, Nauseus. How is the article "badly referenced"? The author uses quotation marks where appropriate and states his sources very clearly elsewhere. Perhaps it's the facts within the article that you find unpalatable?

I can see pros and cons to all the potential solutions. Personally, I still think that penalties are as good as system as any (although I suspect that some Spanish fans might disagree!).

It's between the bits where the article states " ... there are clear signs leaving the EU was adding to soaring prices ..." and " .. it was important to highlight the damage Brexit has also done ...". The negative effects of two events - which the government had little control over - compounded by the negative effects of a completely unnecessary, avoidable event.

If that's your objection then, presumably, you would do away with penalties/ free throws from all sports? A free throw in basketball/ netball, etc relies purely on the ability of the thrower. It is a solitary exercise (as is penalty kicking in rugby). No else is involved or can interfere. In a similar vein, in baseball or cricket if the pitcher or bowler strikes/bowls out the batsmen the rest of the fielding team haven't been involved. I believe that there are only two players actively involved in an ice hockey penalty(?). Possibly but there are practical problems in playing on ad infinitum. In most football leagues - amateur or professional - the match finishes after 90 minutes. If the scores are level, both teams share the spoils; (typically) 1 point each. There is (usually) no requirement in league matches that there has to be a winner. As I said previously, I think that most football fans would prefer to see knock-out matches resolved after 90/ 120 minutes; however, imo penalties are as good a method as any for resolving matters if the match ends in a draw.

You can't say that! Off to 'The Tower' with you.

Tbf you can see why he was a bit cheesed off. His brother got a country (Wales) plus a cultured city (Cambridge). His Aunt had Edinburgh; his simpleton Uncle got an ancient kingdom (Wessex). Even his deviant Uncle got a decent city - albeit a Northern one - York. Poor old Harry gets offered part of one of the worst local authorities in Scotland. No wonder he upped sticks and left!

A game can end with a penalty shoot-out therefore, one more reason football is unwatchable? You ignore the pressure and tension involved in a penalty shoot-out, which is felt by both players and fans: It is a real test of both skill and nerve for the players. A minimum of 5 - usually 6 - players per side are involved in a penalty shoot-out, and it sometimes happens that all 22 players have to take a penalty, so the team element is very much present. That said, I think that the vast majority of fans would prefer that a winner was found in 90/ 120 minutes of play. A 'golden goal' ending has been tried. However, instead of encouraging teams to attack, it usually resulted in negative play, which in the end still required penalties to settle things, therefore it was dropped.

The transcript suggests that Lady H was trying to put Marlene in what she perceived as her place! What Lady H should have said/done. Lady H: Where are you from? Marlene: Hackney Lady H: That's a very nice dress. Alternatively, Lady H could have asked Marlene, any number of different questions e.g. How did you get here? What line of work are you in? Or even: Lady H, sensing Marlene wasn't in a talkative mood, utilises her 60 years of diplomatic experience and moves on: Lady H: Lovely to meet you. I hope that you enjoy the rest of the evening. (Probably) none of this outcry would of then occurred. Piece of p*"' this diplomacy lark.

Aka "The Good Old Days"