Already the UK is estimated to be loosing £350 million a week due to Brexit

[SoloD]

"Britain's output is now around 0.9% lower than was possible if the country had voted to stay in the EU."

This equates to almost exactly £350 million less a week, the same figure that the official Brexit campaign said the UK would benefit from if it voted to leave.

www.ft.com/content/e3b29230-db5f-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

And we have not already left yet...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-44858937

Obama talking about facts - how it's impossible to have a rational discussion about any political situation if one side doesn't actually know, or acknowledges Facts. It's a known strategy from a specific political spectrum to completely ignore the facts. So what's the point of arguing with them. They will figure it out when it hits their families (or will they).

What bias does the FT follow? I'm always interested in the world views of people who call bias. What do you think they should be reporting and why?

What bias does the FT follow?

They don't believe in unicorns?

Genuinely, I am quite tired of the "if they say anything about bad about Brexit or have ever researched and pointed out any potential downsides, they are biased Remoaners whose analysis is immediately suspect" line.

Always look for the sources of articles, the data behind them, and if necessary go look at the data yourself to understand how the study was constructed and if there is any bias there. Just writing off entire publications as "biased" without actually engaging is any critical thinking is a serious problem these days.

I will happily point out that I've taken my own advice and that's how I found and started regularly reading the EU Referendum blog. I may not agree with Richard North's proposed solutions for his data analysis, but I can see he's doing his homework and has a real grip on the detail of Britain's trade and regulatory relationships with the EU and rest of world.