RayC

It was - and still is - an open invite to all Brexit supporters. "Everyone has moved on from talking about Brexit". Clearly many of us haven't: That's why we are still discussing it. And there are very good reasons for that. There are still unresolved issues. Haven't you noticed that the situation in N.Ireland which are a direct result of Brexit? What about the on-going discussions about UK collaboration in EU funded fora? Access to data; that's all sorted, is it? How about regulatory issues e.g. in the chemicals industry? And what about the (financial) service sector? Currently rarely mentioned but outside of the agreement because, yes, at the moment the EU needs access to the City. But in 5 years time? Another reason I am still talking about Brexit is because the UK government needs to be held responsible and accountable for its' Brexit related promises and commitments. Or do you consider that unimportant? Notwithstanding any of the above, why not sate my curiousity and point out the economic benefits that the UK has accrued since the Brexit referendum and/or the date on which we formally left the EU?

On the subject of Brexit, the thread where the video below was originally posted was closed before Brexit supporters had the chance to debunk its' contents. Imo it's only fair that they get the opportunity. Therefore, repeating my original question; perhaps those who still think that Brexit is beneficial, and is not a contributory factor in the current crisis, could let us have the counter argument? (To preempt objections that this 'off-topic', I'd argue that the candidates' attitudes towards Brexit/ the EU will probably play a part in this election, therefore it is relevant).

You are assuming that the Tory Party will act rationally. You may have just given a number of reasons what Sunak won't be elected.

I doubt that any of that will be a problem given the Tories' current predilection for chaos. I wouldn't be surprised if Liz Truss announces that she is standing to succeed herself.

Sunak is the bookie's favourite @13/8

I don't accept that your inference that 'whats done is done'. Those promoting a 'Leave' vote stated that the UK would be better off outside the EU: It is their responsibility to make good on that promise and they need to be held accountable for it. With that in mind, once again, how will the vote to leave the EU help the UK to go forward?

It's another excellent slogan. But perhaps you could explain in slightly more detail how Brexit will help us to do so?

Perhaps those who still think that Brexit is beneficial, and is not a contributory factor in the current crisis, could let us have the counter argument?

If the last week is anything to go by you may get what you want before the day's out!

Why don't these anti-British, Communist, Guardian reading individuals put their bias to one side for a moment, and recognise the excellent job that PM Liz Truss is doing https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23062933.tory-mp-charles-walker-slams-talentless-liz-truss-government-livid-bbc-outburst/

I think that it's time to enact the old adage: "You've gotta laugh otherwise you'd cry". So with that in mind: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/liz-truss-lettuce-last-longer-28235047

I understand your reaction. Problem is if they do reopen the bridge and one of the climbers falls off then they might seriously injure some poor unfortunate below.

It's obviously hypothetical to question whether Labour's handling of the Covid crisis would have made matters worse but imo Labour can be criticised now for a lack of detail in their economic strategy. (Although in the circumstances, this is perfectly understandable: Why leave yourself open to attack when your opposition is constantly shooting themselves in the foot?) However, it's highly unlikely that the infighting in the Tory party will resolve itself before the next election, so if you vote Tory what will you get? Ideological libertarians (the ERG), 'Austerity' economics (Hunt) or 'Traditional' Toryism (Wallace)? Imo a vote for the Tories will be a vote for more chaos and far from the least-worst option.

Help please. I am trying to figure out whether the UK has a government masquerading as a Whirling Dervish troop, or a Whirling Dervish troop masquerading as a government ???? https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-63278993

If the statements cannot be substantiated then it is opinion, not fact. Does that mean it is without value? Not in my opinion!

Neither. My post was clear. I didn't - and still don't - understand what you mean. I asked you to clarify it. You are apparently unable and/or unwilling to do so. Obviously that's up to you. Great. Just to be obviously clear. You agree that the result of the referendum adversely affected sterling? Why does this matter? "Brexit" is a generic term. The result of the referendum in June 2016 had immediate negative economic effects e.g. the decline in sterling. The UK's official departure from the EU in January 2019 had additional negative effects e.g. increased cost to businesses due to the introduction of border controls/ custom formalities. The point is that "Brexit" - irrespective of whether June 2016 or January 2019 is taken as the starting point - has adversely affected the UK economy.

And I offered a counter example based on my experience. All of which is ancedotal and proves nothing. So let's return to my original assertion and challenge to you: Some sectors of the UK labour market have been adversely affected by the result of the Brexit referendum. Do you accept this? If not, please point out the flaws in the methodology and/or findings of the studies supporting this assertion. Ancedotal evidence doesn't pass muster

B*"'er!!! I've been waiting ages for numbers 12 and 25????

I am completely baffled. My interpretation of your line of argument is, Brexit has happened therefore Brexit cannot be a contributory factor in any subsequent events? Clearly this is nonsensical - and not what you meant - so can you please clarify.

You are splitting hairs. I don't see how I can nullify your experience any more than you can nullify mine, or why you should find my example 'strange'? I also don't understand why you wish to focus on this ancedotal evidence rather than address the wider issue? Nevertheless, to avoid a charge that I am avoiding your point, here goes. Are you suggesting that the uncertainty - and the negative effects on the lives of Brits living in the EU in 2016 - caused by the result of the referendum is irrelevant? Are the effects of events which take place within the UK's physical borders the only factors that should be taken into consideration? Wrt the specific example I quoted about job offers to EU nationals being withdrawn. I assume that the UK based companies in question had to go to the time, trouble and expense of restarting the recruitment process. Do I know this for a fact? No. Does that negate my assertion that the result of the Brexit referendum has had negative economic effects on the UK since June 2016? No.

Once again, the onus is on you to disprove the methodology and/or findings of the reports that suggest that Brexit has had negative economic effects. Whether it was speculation or market doubts about the long-term prospects of the UK economy is immaterial. As you admit, sterling was adversely affected by the result of the referendum therefore, by definition, Brexit was the reason for the reaction. My own experience is the opposite. I worked in Belgium until 2018. Not only was my own situation - and the vast majority of Brits I knew - adversely affected by the referendum result, so too were many EU nationals, many of whom had job offers withdrawn. Moreover, the uncertainty about our status during negotiations - where both sides acted appallingly - not only affected us as individuals, but also had an adverse effect on business confidence. However, our respective experience is no more than anecdotal evidence. The fact remains - as I have restated throughout - that research has indicated that Brexit has had a negative effect on the UK economy.

I'm not accusing you of anything. Yes, the effects of Brexit are difficult to quantify and other issues complicate matters but - to repeat myself - many reports indicate that Brexit has already had a negative economic effect on the UK. If you disagree, then you should point out the flaws in these reports' methodologies and/or findings. It did It did It did It did It has It has ........ Hasn't Brexit adversely affected the value of sterling? Hasn't Brexit increased the UK inflation rate? Hasn't Brexit involved unnecessary government spending? Hasn't Brexit meant increased UK government spending in some sectors e.g. farming? Hasn't Brexit adversely affected the ability of UK companies and individuals to do business in the EU? Hasn't Brexit adversely affected the labour market in some sectors of the UK economy? Etc. Etc.

The negative economic effects of the war in Ukraine, Covid restrictions and Brexit are completely separate issues and can be analysed independently. The negative economic effects of Brexit have been happening since the UK voted to leave in 2016 as evidenced by the reports in the link which I posted: The lack of any reports detailing the economic benefits of Brexit since 2016 is also telling. Whenever a Brexiter is challenged about the positive economic effects of Brexit, the answer is almost invariably that these benefits will be seen at some (undefined) point in the future. There is no evidence to support this claim. In this context, Covid - and latterly the war in Ukraine - are simply convenient events to hide behind.

To misquote Beryl from Bristol: "Oh no, not another 10 days of mourning".

No need for Placeholder and myself to bother, someone got there before us. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/?_sft_theme=the-economics-of-brexit Can't claim to have read most of the reports but those I have browsed paint a negative picture. I look forward to you presenting your objections to the methodology and/or findings in due course. In the meantime, perhaps you could list the economic benefits we have gained from Brexit or are they all due 'mañana'?