RayC

Given that there is a labour shortage, many UK workers seem to be either unable and/or unwilling to fill these vacancies. If these vacancies are not filled by UK workers then the choice is simple; either (1) import labour as we were doing pre-Brexit to fill the roles (2) leave the vacancies unfilled and watch the economy contract. The latter seems to be the current default mode.

Yet labour shortages have intensified post-Brexit https://www.ft.com/content/a9677ee4-281d-4d0d-8456-661982890304 Maybe hod carriers in Cricklewood need to be a bit more flexible and look for work slightly further afield e.g. in Ealing.

Wasn't the single market and freedom of movement great? I remember being interviewed for a job which would have required me to be physically present in Prague. The job required fluent English. The interview took place in Brussels.

Incorrect. Statistical methods such as regression analyses allow us to do just that. No doubt true. But the other side of the coin is that there are Brexiters - including many of this board - who refuse to accept that Brexit has had a detrimental effect on the UK economy.

The addition of "sole" changes the meaning significantly. You originally concluded: "... which shows Brexit isn't the reason for the current U.K economic condition." I'll agree that it isn't the sole reason but it is a major contributory factor.

Surprisingly I broadly agree with you. Mine is a typical response of those who did not believe - or were skeptical about - the claimed benefits of Brexit. I also agree that it is time for the UK - I'd say government rather than people - to deal with the self-inflicted problems caused by Brexit and reap the rewards from leaving the EU. The thing is that - based on the evidence to date - successive UK governments have been unable to identify - let alone implement - any of these perceived benefits. Of course - given that Brexiters are unable and/or unwilling to take accountability and responsibility for their action - the UK's current position can be attributed even in part to a failure of Brexit per sec, rather it is simply the consequence of Russian warmongering, a worldwide virus and the dastardly EU being nasty. I think that I'll continue to point the finger and keep moaning.

No matter how many times you repeat this mantra, it still remains untrue. Covid and the war in Ukraine have negatively affected economies but the fact remains that so has Brexit, as the link which I posted earlier demonstrates.

If the company in question were paying less than the minimum wage and/or advertising that they would only employ Polish workers then they were breaking the law.

I would say that most sensible people realised that you couldn't have the benefits of belonging to the world's biggest trading bloc without the accompanying obligations and responsibilities. Always someone else's fault. The EU did what it felt necessary to protect its' members' interests. Anyway, why didn't the UK government(s) plan for the worse-case scenario given that it appears to be common knowledge how badly the EU was likely to behave? Where is the plan for implementing these Brexit benefits?

We had to implement 3% of EU regulation against our will. Similar to Germany. The price that we paid is not worth it.

No matter how often you stick your head in the sand, the fact remains that Brexit has contributed to the UK's current economic problems. To date, there have been few, if any, economic benefits associated with the decision to leave the EU. The Brexiter retort that the economic benefits will take time to filter through and has been hampered by Covid, the war in Ukraine, etc is empty rhetoric. There is no plan (or timeline) to realise these benefits for the simple reason that so few exist a plan is unnecessary. https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

Globally, things vary quite a bit from country to country, and it also can depend on where you departed from, so it is not quite as straightforward as some posters are suggesting. For example, you can bring most fruit and veg but not meat and dairy products into the EU. You can basically bring anything into the UK if it originates from an EU/EEA state. Fruit and veg can be brought in from non-EU/ EEA countries but not meat and dairy. I guess that the moral of this story is: Check before you leave. We arrived at Suvarnabhumi from Turkey yesterday with about 2kg of grapes. Didn't even consider that we might get stopped and there was nothing before boarding or in flight to suggest that importing fruit was banned in Thailand and as it happens, we passed through without a problem. (Grapes were excellent. However, I guess that I should implement my own advice in future!????)

Lot of background detail. Imo most relevant part of article as follows (make of it what you will): "Mr Sunak reportedly wants to agree targets with Mr Macron for stopping boats, and a minimum number of French officers patrolling beaches, and to be able to deploy Border Force officers in France."

If your relatives deny knowing that you were using their address then I guess - and it is just that 'a guess' - that it would be more trouble than it is worth for DWP to prosecute them. However - another guess - DWP will probably try to recover the overpaid amount (plus a penalty?) from your estate. My father died on 15 May and I had to repay 16 days pension from his estate.

Once again you accuse me of contradicting myself where - once again - no contradiction exists: Your conclusion is the result of flawed logic. At no point have I stated - either implicitly or explicitly - that I believe that Johnson would be a better PM than either Sunak or Starmer. In fact, I believe the exact opposite. What I said is that 'Johnson remains the best chance of a Tory victory at the next general election'. Do I believe that Johnson will lead the Tories into the next election and that he would win it? As things currently stand, 'No' and 'No'. However, many things will no doubt change over the next two years, and I'll probably change my view if the facts and the electorate's feeling change. Agreed but see below. Not really. For reasons I can't fathom, Johnson is still the most popular Tory politician according to YouGov albeit with a negative poll rating.

Very debatable. Following Truss's disastrous premiership, imo basically anyone - apart from a serial killer or convicted pedophile - would have lead to a bounce in Tory support in the short term. Whether this improvement can be maintained and whether it is enough to gain victory at the next election are two completely different matters; a 20% difference is a lot to overturn especially if - as promised - we are in for tough times. Imo - and for reasons I can't comprehend - Johnson is still the Tory's best chance of winning the next election. Hopefully, he won't get the chance to prove this one way or the other.

But Labour are more popular than the Tories.

Selective reporting by the Express (there's a surprise!). The same poll also asked 'If a general election were held tomorrow which party (a) would you vote for? (b) expect to win? In both cases, Labour polled in the low/mid 40%, the Tories in low/mid 20%.

That's very unfair. You're forgetting just how united, stable and prosperous the country has been for the past 12 years.

It's possible to feel sympathy for Truss the person but not Truss the politician. Having said that even the former is difficult, given that Truss remains defiantly arrogant and shows no sign of contrition for putting the country through 6 weeks of turmoil. As for the markets settling down; yes, they would have unless, of course, they didn't. A more likely outcome, if Truss had pursued her ill thought-out policies, would have been a run on the pound and all that that would have entailed. It seems to be a trait of right-wingers that they accept no responsibility and accountability for their actions. It's usually the MSM and/or the EU that is to blame when things go wrong, so I guess that the market being blamed is, at least, a change of villain. Always someone else's fault.

The final +/-45 seconds when she offered thanks to various people was fine. As for the rest of it .....

I am the bringer of good news: Apparently Rees-Moog has resigned from the government.

Interesting article in the BBC 6 o'clock news tonight about the effects of Brexit on the UK labour market. Imagine that it will be in the 10pm version as well. Spoiler alert: They imply the effects have been negative.

Indeed. There was a referendum where the majority voted for economic self-harm which is now being shown to be a completely irrational decision. That's how a market economy works. I haven't suggested it isn't. I agree that there should be laws to protect worker's rights, working conditions, etc. I'm not a Truss free-market ideologue. I still don't understand your point. Should some of the Labour laws in the EU (and UK) be tightened up? Probably. Wrt to the events outlined in the article, I don't know anything about French or Spanish law but, given that they are both civilised countries, I imagine most (all?) of the outlined practices are illegal? Once again, we are broadly in agreement. However, yet again, nothing you have posted negates my contention that stopping freedom of movement has damaged the UK labour market in some industries.

Not a justification for leaving the single market Debatable. At a basic level it is simply a matter of demand and supply. If they are in equilibrium, you will - in theory - get a fair market price (wage).