[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

Regarding the funding of Rand, the report in question was funded by Rand Venture, a pot of money that is from philanthropic donation and returns on an endowment, not at all by the EU, in any way. Rand do list the EU in various forms amongst its clients and grantors, as they do the UK government in various departments, perhaps Davis could ask them for an impact assessment. Far and away the largest financial input is from various departments of US government, more than 70%. The report was not commissioned by any client, it was decided by RAND that this was a worthwhile study to do.

I dont know why your source is asking why they didn't include a multiple FTA model, the explanation came directly after the statement they manged to quote, here it is :

"We did not explore the ‘Singapore of the Atlantic’ model, in which the UK would complete FTAs
with numerous countries. Of these potential agreements, an FTA with the United States would
be by far the most productive, but analysis of a UK–US FTA indicates the relative value of having
a series of other FTAs as well. Depending on the countries selected for trade deals, it would take
many FTAs to create a set of free trade partners that had the same size economy as that of the
United States. Furthermore, negotiating numerous FTAs would be challenging and extremely
time-consuming, especially for a country – the UK – that has not had an independent trade policy
for more than 40 years and therefore has little experience negotiating trade deals. Finally, each
FTA would have its own set of rules, adding complexity to businesses conducting international
trade. Therefore, signing many FTAs, but not an FTA with the United States, would not have as
large an economic effect as an FTA with the United States. In this way, the results of modelling
an FTA with the United States come close to modelling an upper bound of the 'Singapore of the
Atlantic Scenario' if the UK were to have no deal with the EU27 "

Basically they disregarded it as it would not be possible to achieve, certainly not in the ten year time frame. The USA has set up FTA's with 20 nations since 1985. Some of these have taken 5 or 6 years to negotiate, some have taken 5 years to come into force, after negotiations were concluded, and take 5 years or more of being in force before the full effects are implemented.

The model used is indeed the same as that used by the Treasury, the model is not "debunked" though, the Treasury applied the model to one scenario and set the time frame as immediate. This study applies the model to 8 scenarios and sets the time frame over ten years.

Not a lot has happened since September, we are still negotiating, we still do not know for sure how hard or soft Brexit will be.

Rand had a trilateral deal UK/US/EU as the best scenario, but a very unlikely one to happen, a bilateral is tough enough with either one.

I agree having funding from the Eu doesn't necessarily indicate bias and I wasn't concerned about the the other issues re trade deals. I highlighted the particular section I was interested in and commented on that specific section.

The Treasury modelling actually came up with two immediate impact scenarios 'shock 'and 'severe shock'. Under the shock scenario, brexit would cause at least 500,000 jobs lost and a reduction in GDP by 3.6%. Average wages would be nearly 2.8% lower and house prices would be cut by 10%. Under the severe shock scenario, a vote to leave would lead to 800,000 job losses and a cut in GDP by 6%. Wages would be 4% lower on average and house prices would be 18% lower. They predicted we would be in a recession by Q3 2016 and you have been promising me one ever since but I doubt even you believe this now. Somehow this model that has proved woefully innacurate within months of the vote in two scenarios will perhaps be more on the ball if there are 8 of them 10 years down the line ... mmmmm.

 

[bWize]

Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees Mog, Iain Duncan Smith, Dominic Raab, David Davis, the disgraced former defence minister Liam Fox and the USELESS Theresa May , you just took a helluva of a beating

Playing devils advocate here, but how did Farage take a beating? It was the Government that were defeated on having the say on decisions regarding exiting the EU, not the actual leaving of the EU itself.

 

[Ernest]

Playing devils advocate here, but how did Farage take a beating? It was the Government that were defeated on having the say on how we left, not the actual leaving of the EU.

All the Brexit loonies took a thrashing tonight, any kind of looney tune take over is dead now

 

[ManOfSussex]

12 Tory rebels apparently.

Don't Cha.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Still leaving by the way
regards
DR

 

[bWize]

All the Brexit loonies took a thrashing tonight, any kind of looney tune take over is dead now

I agree and not a leaver, but a democratic vote did take place and the leave vote won. I just feel uneasy about it not being upheld. Democracy is about the only moral fabric holding this nation together (even if you don't agree with the results)

 

[ManOfSussex]

[tweet]941028823746957313[/tweet]

[tweet]941029602255884289[/tweet]

[tweet]941030037645557761[/tweet]

 

[WATFORD zero]

I agree having funding from the Eu doesn't necessarily indicate bias and I wasn't concerned about the the other issues re trade deals. I highlighted the particular section I was interested in and commented on that specific section.

The Treasury modelling actually came up with two immediate impact scenarios 'shock 'and 'severe shock'. Under the shock scenario, brexit would cause at least 500,000 jobs lost and a reduction in GDP by 3.6%. Average wages would be nearly 2.8% lower and house prices would be cut by 10%. Under the severe shock scenario, a vote to leave would lead to 800,000 job losses and a cut in GDP by 6%. Wages would be 4% lower on average and house prices would be 18% lower. They predicted we would be in a recession by Q3 2016 and you have been promising me one ever since but I doubt even you believe this now. Somehow this model that has proved woefully innacurate within months of the vote in two scenarios will perhaps be more on the ball if there are 8 of them 10 years down the line ... mmmmm.

I think those forecasts may have been based on the 2 years we were told it would take to leave the Single Market.

Here we are now, 18 months on from that and it'll now be at least another 3.3 years before we leave the single market (if the Government doesn't ask for more extensions.

The fact that we are now further away from leaving than we were when the vote was taken may have had a slight effect on forecasts

 

[WATFORD zero]

Still leaving by the way
regards
DR

And, as of Friday, still leaving but with no borders or immigration controls and no Parliamentary Sovereignty by the way

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I think those forecasts may have been based on the 2 years we were told it would take to leave the Single Market.

Here we are now, 18 months on from that and it'll now be at least another 3.3 years before we leave the single market (if the Government doesn't ask for more extensions.

The fact that we are now further away from leaving than we were when the vote was taken may have had a slight effect on forecasts

The immedate impact scenarios predicting a recession in Q3 2016?

Thats not a fact.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The immedate impact scenarios predicting a recession in Q3 2016?

Thats not a fact.

At the vote we were told 2 years - 23rd June 2018

Date Currently requested by GB Government - 29th March 2021

Fact

Your government keeps putting the leave date back. Anyone would think ......................

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

And, as of Friday, still leaving but with no borders or immigration controls and no Parliamentary Sovereignty by the way

You would like to think so
regards
DR

 

[JC Footy Genius]

At the vote we were told 2 years - 23rd June 2018

Date Currently requested by GB Government - 29th March 2021

Fact

Your government keeps putting the leave date back. Anyone would think ......................

Fact Check -

Before the vote Cameron said he would trigger article 50 immediately thinking he wouldn't lose and probably knowing he would be finished if he did.

We are leaving on the date specified by HM Government 11pm UK time on Friday 29 March, 2019. Fact.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Fact Check -

Before the vote Cameron said he would trigger article 50 immediately thinking he wouldn't lose and probably knowing he would be finished if he did.

We are leaving on the date specified by HM Government 11pm UK time on Friday 29 March, 2019. Fact.

It's obviously escaped your notice that we have requested a further 2 years membership of the Single Market until March 29 2021. FACT

 

[WATFORD zero]

You would like to think so
regards
DR

Ah Bless. You need to get someone to explain Friday's statement to you. Probably someone with a lot of patience

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Fact Check -

Before the vote Cameron said he would trigger article 50 immediately thinking he wouldn't lose and probably knowing he would be finished if he did.

We are leaving on the date specified by HM Government 11pm UK time on Friday 29 March, 2019. Fact.

Are you? Government were beaten tonight. I wouldn’t be so sure.

 

[Ernest]

Tories going mental tonight sacked one of the rebel MP's as Chairman of London Tories and threatening to deselect the rest, thought only Labour did this

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Tories going mental tonight sacked one of the rebel MP's as Chairman of London Tories and threatening to deselect the rest, thought only Labour did this

 

[Hampster Gull]

Tories going mental tonight sacked one of the rebel MP's as Chairman of London Tories and threatening to deselect the rest, thought only Labour did this

To be fair Labour are leading experts at it. Doesn’t mean others can’t have a crack at the best

 

[nicko31]

Tories going mental tonight sacked one of the rebel MP's as Chairman of London Tories and threatening to deselect the rest, thought only Labour did this

Its a sad day when MP are sacked for putting country before party. Wake up Tories, time for proper scrutiny of Brexit. They would do well to have more cross party participation, too much at stake

Well done Dominic Grieve, you showed guts.