RayC

My last word on the matter which, no doubt, will be a blessed relief to other posters You are either trolling or delusional. Again, only you know which it is (or maybe not if it's the latter, in which case you have my sympathy).

Yet again. No elaboration. Nothing to support the statement. Then you shouldn't have any trouble referring to the post(s). No time like the present. Done it far too often. I suggest that you give it a go. Your counselling is about as good as your reasoning. You going to tire of trolling any time soon?

You do realise that the ONS, which you now ridicule, is the very same ONS who produced the data that - up to now -you have been so keen to champion as fact?

Seems like everything is "ongoing"!

There is nothing incorrect in my previous post. You may well have been referring to that particular post of JohnnyF; I was not, as was clear in my previous post outlining the chain of events: It is simply a case of you misinterpreting matters. Only you know whether this is deliberate or inadvertent. Your post to which I am replying is yet another attempt to muddy the waters in order to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

I'll help you out as you clearly find it difficult to follow a discussion. On p.18 (+/-13 hours as I write), JohnnyF referenced the IMF revised FORECAST. Candide replied to this post (p.18, 10 hrs) Johnny F (p.18, 9 hrs) replied with the following: "Better than many EU countries. Meaning that leaving the EU is not the cause of low growth, but rather the worldwide economic slowdown caused by Covid lockdowns and the war in Ukraine. Project Fear has been proved to be a lie." I disagreed with JohnnyF about this, and referenced the OBR report (p.18, 8hrs) You then either deliberately - or, more likely, simply because you are incapable of following an argument (maybe a combination of both?) - suggested that I was comparing 'actual' data with forecasts which was clearly not the case. In hindsight, I should have made this post immediately following that post of yours. Ho hum. The only line of argument that you seem capable of presenting is either based on misinterpretation, or one based on an overly simplistic, pedantic semantics. Perhaps you should have actually attended school instead of playing truant!?

We must stop agreeing like this???? You're right, of course. The UK's greater flexibility in Employment law is a double-edged sword. In the example you cite it is a disadvantage (for the worker). In the case of fruit pickers/ bar staff, the greater flexibility might help to create jobs and be beneficial to both parties.

Difficult to disagree with most of what you say (and reference). The pandemic, in particular, appears to have changed many people's attitudes to work worldwide. Nevertheless, your links also reference the importance of pay and working conditions. Relative to most EU nations, pay rates for fruit pickers and hospitality staff in the UK are quite high. Also employment law is more flexible in the UK. Add in the fact that English is the second language for those who speak another tongue and it makes the UK a relatively attractive for such workers vis-a-vis other EU countries. The fly in the ointment is (the removal of) freedom of movement for EU workers The number of workers arriving in the UK from the EU might not have recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but I'd suggest that there can be little doubt that the removal of freedom of movement has contributed to the decline in their numbers.

"Nothing to do with Brexit" Very debatable. The number of EU migrants coming to the UK has decreased. The number of migrants coming from non-EU nations for work has increased. Coincidence? Perhaps but imo unlikely. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2022#non-eu-reason-for-migration

I've no idea why you would conclude that I have difficulty differentiating between certain words. What I (still) don't understand is what point you are trying to make.

If the government had defined Brexit as a 'Norway' type deal, I'm pretty sure that many (most?) Brexiters would have been up in arms.

Answer (noun): a thing that is said, written, or done as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation. Something that you seem consistently unable to provide To take a look in the mirror (Idiom): To consider, realize, or admit one's own failing or culpability in relation to some issue. Maybe something you should try.

But it's a little more nuanced than that. I don't have any hard evidence to support my contention but I'd suggest that in complete contrast to Finland, pre-Brexit the UK - especially London despite its' high cost of living - was seen as a desirable location by many young EU nationals, and consequently many jobs in the hospitality sector were filled by them. Some may have been students working part-time; others may have taken advantage of freedom of movement and spend a few months here. Since Brexit, the number of EU nationals in the UK is down. Although it won't happen, it would be interesting to see what effect reinstating freedom of movement for EU nationals would have on the Hospitality sector. I suspect that the 128k vacancies would fall dramatically. (Not directed at you: I'm aware that EU nationals can get a visa to work in the UK. The data suggests that they do not want the hassle and expense in doing so).

In which case, it seems sensible to look outside of the EU. This also seems like a country specific problem as - by their own admission and for whatever reasons - Finland is not seen as being an attractive destination for migrants. I'm not sure that this says much about the labour shortages in the UK. Many vacancies are in the Agricultural and Hospitality sectors and are low/ semi-skilled jobs. Many of these jobs were filled by EU nationals pre-Brexit.

The Articles are simply statements of the process and procedures. I don't see why or how they could be anything more? Agreed. If you are implying that the EU would be the dominant partner in any negotiation then, again, agreed. If you are suggesting something else, I can't see what it is. Once again. Agreed although some Brexiters such as Nigel Farage wouldn't. (I think?) we agree that the EU was the dominant partner. Imo it also pretty quickly became clear that they had the better negotiators (especially when it came to lead negotiators). Given this, it can't be any surprise that the final agreement would have largely been on the EU's terms. It's not clear to me what you are suggesting could, and should have, happened? Your comment also doesn't address my point about the lack of agreement about what Brexit meant. If Brexiters couldn't agree this amongst themselves, how could they expect an outcome on which they expect a favourable outcome?

The early indications being a more positive upgrade from the IMF, which suggests UK growth not significantly higher than other nations? Imo not a great deal to hang one's hat on Well, the immediate market reaction to Truss' policy announcements and the subsequent rebound in market sentiment upon her removal for a start. The improvement in diplomatic relations between the UK and EU for another. That's off the top of my head. Obviously our opinions differ.

Not for the first time, I find myself asking, what is your point?

It has happened under a Conservative government which is implementing Brexit. Personally, I don't see the rise in immigration as a failing. However, I also don't see any particular benefit in swapping EU nationals for Asian nationals. (And before anyone goes down that particular rabbit hole: I am not anti-Asian or racist. Just questioning what expertise - benefital to the UK economy - can be found in Asia that can't be found within the EU?)

Yes, you have Did you have any faith in the IMF before their revised figures were published? Did you read the article or merely the headline?

It's good news that IMF currently have more confidence in the UK than they had previously. However, I'll hold off putting the bunting up; imo a bit premature to suggest that a projected 0.4% annual growth rate is a harbinger of decades of future prosperity. This is probably, at least, partly due to us now having a serious politician in charge rather than an incompetent ideologue (someone you supported if I remember correctly?). Interesting that you take pleasure in the problems currently faced by our neighbours.

You seem to be putting great emphasis on the revised IMF forecasts. Have a closer look at the OBR datasets. You will find a lot of results as well as forecasts.

Presumably, the IMF changed their forecasts because new data affected their conclusions. In a similar vein, the OBR has reviewed its' data (and assumptions) and found that there is no need to revise its' conclusions that leaving the EU has - and will continue to have - negative economic consequences for the UK.

Once again, one of the problems of Brexit is highlighted: There is no clear vision of what it is. Farage's vision of Brexit is different from Sunak's which is different from Gove's which is different to .... How can it possibly succeed if you don't know what "it" is?

The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) disagree https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

BoE target inflation rate is 2% so, yes, the current inflation rate is way too high. Unless you collect, collate and analyse every transaction made, you will never get the actual inflation rate, only estimates. The UK figures for inflation are based on a basket of goods. The items in the basket are continually updated. The current list can be found in 2023 Excel sheet on this page https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/consumerpriceinflationbasketofgoodsandservices The basket of goods almost certainly isn't a perfect reflection of consumer behaviour, and the resulting overall rate will therefore be flawed, however, the methodology is clear and imo it gives a reasonable estimate. Imo this is a much better, and more credible, approach then just plucking a figure out of thin air.