[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

If you multiply £4300 by the number of UK households, you get the figure that represents a 6.2% difference in expected GDP's from Remaining and Leaving and striking a Canada style FTA. It isn't a lie, it is an indication of how much better or worse off the country would be. I doubt we will end up in a Canada style FTA with the EU, but it was/is one of the possibilities, there were other assessments, one on a Norway model, one on a Swiss model, one on Canada style and one on No Deal and WTO trading terms. Of those I think a Canada style FTA was/is preferred by most Leave campaigners, and the figures this produced were not as bad as the No Deal, WTO model, so I think it a fair model to take as representative.

Indication? .... No, it's a complete guess about the long-term from the very same people who can't even accurately predict six months in advance (see immediate impact of the vote = recession, 500,000 more unemployed).' ...the same people who regularly make predictions/ forecasts that are completely wrong. The same people that proved so untrustworthy/politically manipulated that the OBR was established. (btw the OBR aren't much better).

Fair model ' .. my hairy arse

 

[Baldseagull]

It was a lie. It was also 4300 per worker not household.

No, it was definitely per household. You can decide whether or not to trust the Treasuries judgement, and you can question whether it is reasonable to present the GDP as per household, but it is not a lie.
It will be impossible to prove in any case, it cannot be proven to be true, or false, as we will not know for certain what would happen if we had taken an alternate path to that which we end up taking.

 

[beorhthelm]

May's deal would mean free trade, as we currently have. The Bank of England estimate that our GDP could be 1% lower after 5 years' time than if we had remained in. So if 6.2% is £4,300, then 1% would be under £700.

really have to point out here that the BoE estimate is GDP increase would be 1% lower. if forecast remaining in EU is 1.5% pa, after 5 years GDP growth is 7.5, the BoE prediction is that outside the EU growth would be 6.5%. very much reinforces the point in later post that the assertion shouldn't be repeated because it is misrepresented.

 

[Triggaaar]

really have to point out here that the BoE estimate is GDP increase would be 1% lower. if forecast in EU is 1.5% pa, after years GDP growth is 7.5, the BoE prediction is that outside the EU would be 6.5%.

No, it wasn't 1% lower growth each year, becoming 6.5% after 5 years, it was a total of 1% after 5 years.

The Bank of England said on Wednesday that GDP would have been at least 1% higher in five years’ time if the UK had voted to remain, while an official Whitehall analysis concluded that in all Brexit scenarios, including May’s final deal, the UK would be worse off.

Official figures say the UK economy could be up to 3.9% smaller after 15 years under Theresa May's Brexit plan, compared with staying in the EU.

 

[pastafarian]

I think we should have a second Chillcot enquiry, I wasn’t happy with last one..

Would love to see Blairs face when he was informed that the 2nd enquiry had been renamed The Peoples Enquiry

 

[pb21]

What if May's deal was amended such that if the backstop was implemented the amount that the UK owed was immediately halved and then reduced by £30 million/day.

That would incentivise the EU into preventing the backstop occurring and then minimising the duration it lasts for.

Edit: the savings could also be explicitly ring fenced for NHS spending in parliament legislation.

 

[Baldseagull]

It was a lie, and I will detail why.

Firstly, the figure is wrong. The figure is looking at GDP per household - total GDP, divided by the number of households. However, that is not how you measure the actual amount each household gets. GDP is currently about £1.8tn a year which divided by 27 million households gives you £66,667 per household. But the average household income is about £44,000. So you can't attribute a drop in GDP to a drop in household income on a pound for pound basis. So it's a complete lie.

Secondly, it's an estimate on what could happen were we to take a deal that we're not likely to take. The poster doesn't say 'households could be £x worse off if we follow the Canada deal', it says that the cost to UK families will be £4,300 if we leave the EU. The poster acts like that is a fact, when clearly it isn't (even if the figure was correct, which it isn't).

Lastly, regarding the poster, the Treasury Select Committee said:
“Neither government departments nor other spokespeople for the remain side should repeat [this] mistaken assertion… to persist with this claim would be to misrepresent the Treasury’s own work.’

Average household income is not usually reported, it is usually the median household income, are you confusing the two? They are not quite the same thing, but that only highlights the misleading nature of stating it as a per household hit, I will concede that it is misleading to express it as per household.

On your second point, to say that to use the Canada model was not reasonable pre referendum, is strange. It was the middle road between Norway and WTO. Which model should have been used as a fair representation?

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

Er, your rambling. A few commas might help me understand what the **** you are trying to say.

Is this what you are trying to say??


View attachment 103056

Learn the difference between your and you're. It might help us understand what the **** you are trying to say

 

[Baldseagull]

UK to remain in Common Transit Convention after Brexit

Continued membership of the convention will ensure simplified cross-border trade for UK businesses exporting their goods.....The UK is currently a member of the CTC while it is in the EU, and has successfully negotiated membership in its own right after Brexit. This would apply to any new trading relationship with the EU or in the unlikely event of a no deal.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-remain-in-common-transit-convention-after-brexit

I hope you are not under the impression that this means no problems at Dover.

 

[Baldseagull]

Indication? .... No, it's a complete guess about the long-term from the very same people who can't even accurately predict six months in advance (see immediate impact of the vote = recession, 500,000 more unemployed).' ...the same people who regularly make predictions/ forecasts that are completely wrong. The same people that proved so untrustworthy/politically manipulated that the OBR was established. (btw the OBR aren't much better).

Fair model ' .. my hairy arse

The model says that under a Canada style FTA with the EU we would have grown 6% or so less by 2030 than if we remain in the EU, it was not a guess, it was modelled, you can criticise the model as inaccurate, but it is not a guess. I don't think a 0.6% slower annual rate of growth is particularly fanciful myself.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

What if May's deal was amended such that if the backstop was implemented the amount that the UK owed was immediately halved and then reduced by £30 million/day.

That would incentivise the EU into preventing the backstop occurring and then minimising the duration it lasts for.

Edit: the savings could also be explicitly ring fenced for NHS spending in parliament legislation.

Even as a leaver I quite like that idea.

 

[Mental Lental]

So the other opposition MPs tabled an amendment for the no-confidence vote to be against the government and not just May. Any chance this vote happens before Christmas? Could be an interesting festive period.

 

[clapham_gull]

Think I've solved it. An AV style vote of:

1) Stay
2) Leave
3) None of the above.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Mental Lental]

This headline made me laugh:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46600850

Here we are nearly 3 months from no deal and the government is "considering" ramping up no deal plans.

Take your time Theresa, no rush.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Anyone seen Dominic Raab's tweet the other day from the 1950s?

 

[CHAPPERS]

[tweet]1074372746384166920[/tweet]

 

[surrey jim]

Think I've solved it. An AV style vote of:

1) Stay
2) Leave
3) None of the above.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

Can it be renamed

1) In
2) Out
3) Shake it all about

Rather than the peoples vote we could call it the Hokey Cokey vote

 

[Hugo Rune]

[tweet]1074372746384166920[/tweet]

Ah yes, the 50’s.

The last major remnants of the empire are lost & we become just another (broke) European country.

What do we do?

Well - we start working with our neighbours in this new continent of peace and prosperity that millions of Britons gave their lives to create in the two world wars.

Just when we need to stick together to counter the likes of Russia (Aggressive State), China (Aggressive Economy) and America (Aggressive President), we pull out.

Brexit is the singularly most stupid thing this country has ever done, no wonder Putin & Trump are so delighted with it!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No AV though. Biggest vote share wins.

Ah yes, nothing like fiddling a vote before it even takes place.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

[tweet]1074372746384166920[/tweet]

Raab is one of the worst champions of Tinkerbell Theory.

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1074634063322013696?s=19