RayC

Have to agree with you both. Difficult to see past him as a paedo, but he was a brilliant performer. Saw him in a Xmas concert (probably that '82 comeback tour). One of the best concerts that I've been to.

I wouldn't (have) let my young kids anywhere near him. In fact, I'd warn my adult kids to steer well clear of this *"':;

This seems to suggest that you prefer quantifiable data to intention. That's fair enough. Therefore, I'm sure that you will agree that Brexit has negatively affected the UK economy, given that the overwhelming majority of available data supports this hypothesis?

So some polls have called things wrong in the past therefore all polls will be incorrect. Interesting logic.

If what you say is correct then governments and businesses the world over are wasting their money conducting market research. Apologies for being blunt but it appears that you have no understanding of sampling theory, survey design or statistics in general.

Once again, I don't understand your point. If by majority, you mean a majority of the electorate then no, that would not have been the sample size. However, assuming that a survey is well-designed, a relatively small sample will allow conclusions be made about the larger population.

So then you will agree that the personal experience of a majority of the UK population is that Brexit has negatively affected the UK economy?

I don't understand what point(s) you are trying to make. That data collected by surveys is inferior to individual personal experience? If so, I disagree. As I repeat so often that it is turning into a mantra: If Brexiters refute the validity of the various surveys concluding that Brexit has adversely affected the UK economy, the onus is on them to highlight the flaws in these surveys' findings and/or their methodology(s). To date, nothing has appeared. The UK is a G7 economy. Why should it be a surprise that a large number of its' population can still afford expensive concert tickets or nights out in a pub? The decline is relative. The data - that word again - suggests that a growing number of the population aren't so fortunate. That's the point. The fact that others are more fortunate doesn't negate it.

Assumptions work both ways, Brexiters assume that the "sunny uplands" will - at the very least - become visible at some point in the future. Currently while there might not be an overwhelmingly majority in the UK in favour of rejoining the EU, there is a growing realisation among the electorate that it was sold a pup by the 'Vote Leave' campaign.

It matters because as the article states " (there is) concern that the UK is about to lower standards in areas such as environmental protection and workers’ rights – breaching “level playing field” provisions that were at the heart of the post-Brexit trade and cooperation agreement (TCA)". If the UK government wants a FTA with the EU, it needs to play by the rules. It's as simple as that. Amending your analogy slightly, I'd hazard a guess that it will be like a teacher reprimanding a stroppy pupil in times past. It will probably start off an with a 'Stop doing that'. If that doesn't work then maybe, a clip round the ear. If that fails a sterner warning, 'Stop that now unless you want six of the best'. If the caning fails, detention until you see sense and amend your ways. Possibly. But the EU doesn't appear to have any major problems with any other states with which it has a FTA. It may well have been an "authoritised" leak. As we all do.

They probably have although only because the full title wouldn't fit on the label: "Unilateral rebalancing measures in the event of UK government failing to implement - or breaking - signed Agreement"

Currently no but the demographic will be a lot different in the 2030s compared with 2016, so I can see it happening.

Of course, it's conjecture on both our parts but if a Labour government is returned at the next election, I can see relations with the EU improving and off the record, "just suppose we were to apply" type conversations taking place. Imo the earliest possible date for a referendum would be 2031 with membership following 2 - 4 years later. That it is a best possible scenario from my perspective and point of view: It wouldn't surprise me if an application to rejoin happened towards the end of the '30s with membership following in the early '40s. I don't think that the EU would deliberately make the process painfully slow, but I'd imagine that they would want some guarantees about commitment which a UK government might be unwilling - or more likely, unable - to commit to and would need ironing out. So far as it being more expensive. Quite probably. I doubt that we will get the same deal we had in 2016. Makes you wonder why we left, doesn't it?????

Do you really think that IF the political economy in the UK continues on its' current trajectory or gets worse, that there is no possibility of a UK government applying to rejoin the EU at some point in the 2030s?

I doubt that any recent Olympics or senior football tournament has shown a positive financial return on its' investment. However, it's a bit more than simply a 2 week 'feelgood' factor. Much depends on that word 'legacy' and how you measure it In the case of Athens and London, these are some of the positives which are claimed to have come out of hosting the Games. (Admittedly, not the most independent of sources!) https://olympics.com/ioc/news/athens-2004-olympic-legacies-in-the-greek-capital https://olympics.com/ioc/news/london-2012-a-legacy-that-keeps-giving

There have been a number of reports - e.g. OBR, LSE, FT; links for all these studies have been supplied numerous times previously - which have concluded that Brexit has negatively affected the UK economically. Brexiters might not like the contents of these reports but the onus is on them to explain why the conclusions reached are not valid.

Sports and politics have always been intertwined e.g. the ancient Olympics. Sadly, I agree to a large extent. Maybe I'm being a bit naive and it was ever thus but nowadays it does appear that, in some events, the outcome is dictated by who has the best drugs, not who is the best athlete. Imo the expansion of the Olympics to include sports such as skateboarding devalues the Games. A business, yes but having said what I have previously, imo the Olympics do add something to a city (even if it is for only +/-2 weeks). I attended events at both Athens 2004 and London 2012 and I felt that there was a real (different sort of) buzz to both cities at the time.

This is going to upset Manu

Thank you for supporting my hypothesis that fans of American football are certifiably insane????????

It peaked at £1 = €1.75 in the early 2000s but so what? My point is that the result of the referendum was the catalyst for an overnight fall of +/-10% in the value of the pound and it has consistently traded within this €1.10 - €1.20 range ever since.

Anyone who denies that Covid and the war in Ukraine have had a negative effect on the UK (and other) economy(ies) is a fool. However, the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that, to date, Brexit has also had a negative effect on the UK economy (numerous links have been posted numerous times in the past). Re inflation: Some Brexit supporters seem to mistrust economic models, but even intuitively it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Brexit has contributed to inflation. Prior to the referendum the £/€ exchange rate was in the 1.30 - 1.40 range, it now trades in the 1.10 - 1.20 range. I find it hard to believe that this 10 - 20% decline has not lead to some price increases for UK businesses and consumers.

I heard that the world is flat. The same bloke also told me American football was entertaining. A game called 'football' where no more than 1 player in the team uses his feet, where it appears +/-90% of the players never touch the ball other than by accident, and where an hour's play is spread out over 4+ hours.???? Do spectators have to undergo a mental health examination to confirm that they are certifiably insane before attending these events?????

I'd give Sunak the benefit of the doubt. It was a spur of the moment reaction. I doubt that he actually believes what he said. It's incorrect and overly simplistic to say that because Spain currently has lower inflation than the UK, then Brexit is to blame. Equally, the fact that several EU countries currently have a higher inflation rate than the UK does not prove that Brexit is irrelevant. Brexit has almost certainly had some effect on both the UK's inflation rate and, to varying degrees, those of the individual EU member states. It was also the one component of the inflation 'mix' that was avoidable. Unless you are some sort of economic sadomasochist, there doesn't seem to be any economic justification for Brexit.

Neither. Forecasts should be based on a sound methodology, verifiable data and stated assumptions. Forecasts are very seldom totally correct but, more often than not, they usually offer a good indication of the direction of travel. In any event, l'm a lot more inclined to believe in these types of forecast than those based on the fact that one local supermarket, pub, etc. happens to be doing a roaring trade.

Patience, dear boy. We will most likely see how Labour manages the economy in a couple of years time.????