Not out 31 Oct if they vote for out

saddo typical brexiter - doesn't think he will be affected by brexit and wants other British people damaged because he "won".

I still don't understand the desire and rush to get Brexit "done". It's not going to go away for many years but needs to be right. This isn't a thing to be taken lightly or to be rushed. It's complex & difficult.

For the record, I'm not insinuating, the public were incredibly stupid

Could take several years to finalise so all the rush rush is a smokescreen.

btw think on this; if it means nothing to leave on October 31st then why keep stopping it?

perhaps you should try The Sun & broaden your lefty outlook
not trying to stop it

which would likely have a large negative impact on our economy. Says who? YOU?

their aim has been to stop it all along - they swallow the eu propaganda whole

brexiteer desperate to all go down to brighton beach and unveil their union jack towels and chant we love tommy robinson,with mark francois giving a speech saying up yours adolph

How Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit would hit the UK economy

The Brexit deal that Boris Johnson, the prime minister, is seeking to strike with Brussels this week would push the UK down the route of a hard Brexit, resulting in the nation missing out on up to 7 per cent of growth, according to new estimates from UK in a Changing Europe. The analysis undertaken by Hanwei Huang, Jonathan Portes and Thomas Sampson of King’s College London and the London School of Economics said Mr Johnson’s “red lines” on regulation and trade policy pointed to a post-Brexit arrangement with the EU more distant than the deal struck by his predecessor Theresa May. Although the think-tank’s estimates differ from the government’s own long-term Brexit analysis, the core result is the same, showing that the looser Britain’s ties are with the EU, the more economic performance will suffer. Mr Johnson’s negotiators are engaged in intense talks with their counterparts in Brussels ahead of a crucial two-day EU summit that starts on Thursday. Although the details of Mr Johnson’s plan to solve the major stumbling block of the Irish border have not been made public, his “double customs plan” would see Northern Ireland remain in the EU customs union to avoid the need for a hard border in Ireland but remain in the UK customs territory for legal terms. But while averting a no-deal would remove the immediate threat to the economy, his longer-term proposals suggest a harder Brexit that may struggle to convince the pro-Brexit Labour MPs who Mr Johnson may need to get his plan through parliament. Mary Creagh, Labour MP for Wakefield, said: “Brexit is not just about [the] Irish backstop, but [the] fact that Johnson’s aim to diverge from EU standards — workers rights, food standards and the environment — makes us all much poorer.” For Mr Johnson, an arrangement that keeps Northern Ireland effectively in EU arrangements would allow him to pursue his ambition of a future relationship, “based on a free trade agreement in which the UK takes control of its own regulatory affairs and trade policy”. The academics said that would, at best, be a “Canada-minus” model in which barriers to trade with the EU would be “notably lower than in a no-deal scenario, but considerably higher than under Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement”. The modelling work, predominantly carried out for the think-tank by the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE, was done on the basis of the prime minister’s proposal to the EU from earlier this month rather than the precise compromise tabled by Mr Johnson last week. But Mr Portes of King’s College London said: “Nothing in the last few days changes the economic impacts here.” There would be significant friction for goods trade arising from full customs control between Dover and Calais and other trade routes between the UK and EU alongside new behind the border restrictions for services. In the long term, after about 10 years, these new trade barriers alone would reduce national income per head by 2.5 per cent, according to the analysis. The most controversial part of all long-term Brexit impact assessments is whether to add additional effects for the possibility of weaker productivity growth resulting from additional trade barriers. When the LSE team added these, the economic hit rose to 6.4 per cent, compared with 4.9 per cent under Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement. On the basis of Mr Johnson’s proposals, that reduction in future gross domestic product would be the equivalent of every person in the UK missing out on £2,000 of income on average each year. In comparison, a no-deal Brexit would reduce GDP per capita by £2,500 a year. The UK in a Changing Europe analysis was unique in adding additional effects based on the likely new Australian-style points-based migration system the government wants to introduce following Brexit, which would prioritise higher skilled workers without preferences for EU migrants. In a more liberal immigration regime modelled by the think-tank, the numbers of lower skilled migrants from the EU would fall by two-thirds, but increase skilled migration from outside the EU by 50 per cent.Overall numbers of migrants would fall, but the pay levels would rise, leading to a relatively small drop in UK GDP, but a 0.6 per cent rise in per capita incomes, due to the higher average skill levels of migrants. A more restrictive scenario estimated the effects of a 75 per cent drop in EU migrants earning less than £30,000 and only a 25 per cent rise in skilled migration from outside the EU. This saw a further 1.8 per cent hit to GDP with income per person also dropping because the skilled EU migration would also fall. In total, the effects of a more restrictive migration regime and the trade impacts could combine so that the UK missed out on 7 per cent of growth over the next decade, almost five years worth of expansion at current rates of economic performance. The analysis chimes with the government’s own long-term Brexit study, and recent statements by HM Revenue & Customs. That showed that customs checks and form-filling alone — which would still be needed if a free trade agreement with the EU was signed — would cost companies £15bn a year.

C&P all the lefty diatribe you want; it means nothing as there is opposing views from other learned scholars. You seem to be rather pompous but without a view of your own & trust  so-called experts who are invariably WRONG! Just like the IMF

Can you tell us about the benefits of Brexit?

i could yes; but you wouldn't understand

nobody has ever suggested there wouldn't be pain in the "short term" well not in my world. I made my decision on the basis that it would be worth it in the very long term; as did many others. What galls me is people like you still using that as a bat to hit us with. Now about my question you haven't answered?

but i will give you a personal reason from me of a benefit:

to completely & utterly pîss off people like you!

"a seething rant" a bit over the top there from dummie dave  there we go again - "hard brexit" you lot are watching far too much MSM as that little beaut has only reared it's head again since Saturday

dave is certain that staying in the EU is best for him so f-c anyone for whom it won't be.

Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London and one of the
academics leading publicly funded research into the effects of Brexit, says: “The conclusion that,
very roughly, Brexit has already reduced UK growth by 1 per cent or slightly less seems clear.”

Companies are becoming more vocal over the economic hit, blaming the government’s slow
handling of the Brexit negotiations for a weaker business climate. In October, the International
Monetary Fund highlighted Britain as a “notable exception” to an improving global economic
outlook, while the OECD, the Paris-based club of mostly rich nations,

Thomas Sampson and colleagues at the London School of Economics have examined the direct
effect of sterling’s depreciation since the EU referendum on prices and living standards. With the
pound falling about 10 per cent following the June 2016 result, inflation has risen more in Britain
than in other advanced economies. It started with petrol prices and spread to food and other goods,
pushing overall inflation up from 0.4 per cent at the time of the referendum to 3.1 per cent last
month .

When looking at prices, depending on the level of import exposure of different goods and services,
the LSE study estimates that the Brexit vote directly increased inflation by 1.7 percentage points of
the 2.7 percentage-point rise in the 12 months after the referendum. And with wage inflation stuck
at just over 2 per cent, “the increase in inflation caused by the Leave vote has already hurt UK
households”, Mr Sampson says. He calculates that “the Brexit vote has cost the average worker almost
one week’s wages”, but adds the figure could be higher or lower if a complete evaluation of the economic
impact was applied rather than just the initial squeeze on incomes from leaving the EU.

Other effects are more apparent. Business investment grew at an annual rate of 1.3 per cent in the
third quarter, compared with a March 2016 official forecast for annual growth of 6.1 per cent for
the whole of 2017. Exports, boosted by sterling’s depreciation, have proved more resilient. The
OBR now expects a 5.2 per cent rise in the volume of goods and services sold abroad in 2017
compared with a pre-referendum prediction of 2.7 per cent.

Net migration to the UK from the EU fell by 40 per cent in the first 12 months after the vote.
Professor Portes last year predicted an ultimate decline of between 50 and 85 per cent on net
migration levels before the referendum. “Arithmetically, this reduction [of 40 per cent] of net EU
migration translates into a reduction in growth of 0.1 to 0.2 per cent,” he says.

Depending on the period of comparison chosen, the UK economy would normally have been
expected to expand by between 2.5 per cent and 3.2 per cent over the same period. The lower end
of the range comes from more recent history, such as the average since a Conservative-led
government came to office in 2010, while the upper boundary reflects Britain’s long-term
performance in the 30 years before the financial crisis. The hit to the economy on this comparison
is between 0.6 per cent and 1.2 per cent of national income.

Geographical comparisons produce a similar conclusion. Britain’s year-on-year growth rate
tended to be close to the G7 upper range of outcomes over the past 25 years. Had that performance
continued, British GDP would have grown 2.9 per cent since the referendum. The statistical
algorithm produces a significantly larger estimate of what would have been possible, suggesting
Brexit has already removed 1.3 per cent from GDP since the vote.

Overall, 14 different counterfactuals estimated by the FT and others give a range of a hit
between 0.6 per cent of national income and 1.3 per cent, with an average of 0.9 per cent. With
national income of £2tn in the year ending in the third quarter of 2017, it means the UK is likely to
be producing £18bn less a year than would have been reasonable to expect and this is directly
attributable to Britain’s decision to leave the EU. That is just short of £350m a week.

Of course, we have not left yet.

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says that “for every 1 per cent of GDP you
lose, that’s getting on for £10bn a year of foregone tax revenues”. If 0.9 per cent of GDP has been
lost over the five quarters for which data exists, there has already been a £9bn hit to the public
finances. So even before the UK has left the EU, the referendum result is costing the UK
government more than can possibly be recovered by ending net contributions to Brussels.

Remainers totally cacking themselves because even THEY can see the end is in sight.Duplicitous to$$ers the lot of em .