The evidence of a Brexit bill for shoppers is mounting by the week. The Bank of England gave as clear a warning as possible last week that inflation is likely to outstrip wage rises and squeeze consumers.

Many do not trust the Bank of England, since its worst forecasts about Brexit have so far not materialised. But the evidence is also mounting from particular companies.

As The Mail on Sunday reports today, there have been a slew of price hikes in the last week from Premier Foods – maker of household favourites such as Ambrosia custard and Mr Kipling.

No turning back: Prime Minister Theresa May and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker

Popular shirt-seller Charles Tyrwhitt is raising its prices (see our interview with founder Nick Wheeler). This week’s official inflation number is set to show a sharp jump.

The nation has voted for Brexit and there can be no turning back. But that does not mean the debate is over about what we stand to gain or lose from this venture. The costs are mounting.

Shoppers can feel it in their wallets. Some businesses will do well from Brexit but others are already feeling it in their profitability.

There was never any doubt that there would be some benefits to Brexit, the only question was whether they would remotely outweigh the costs.

For too long the argument has been dominated by claims that Brexit has done no harm or has cost us nothing.

That is no longer sustainable. The onus is now on the Brexiteers and the Government, which has taken on the task of carrying out the referendum decision, to show that there are real benefits.

Brexit bites: Premier Foods has recently brought in price hikes

Clamping down on energy bills

The future of energy regulation is already a burning topic in the Election campaign. Labour’s call for some form of renationalisation is entirely academic since the chances of it being executed are zero.

The Conservatives are brandishing the very blunt weapon of price caps, which have led to warning of profit wipeouts and job losses.

The time has come for a more considered but no less forceful system of regulating prices. What about an alternative model more akin to the water industry, where the regulator analyses and, in some cases, determines the costs faced by water companies and then finds a price level which meets these costs and allows a margin for future investment and profit?

I even suspect some in the energy industry would welcome such a model, since it might give them a stable and sustainable future rather than leaving them exposed to whimsical solutions from politicians looking for an easy vote-winner.