[Politics] Brexit

[5ways]

Firstly it isn't hard evidence whatever that means secondly it's only good analysis because it supports your opinion.

https://woodfordfunds.com/economic-impact-brexit-report/

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

Why is the analysis about Brexit in the two links I provided wrong/incorrect or any more likely to be true than the reports you always cherry pick?

I don't cherry pick I've just used studies which are up to date and have been published to coincide with the referendum. I'm not cherry-picking either, it's what they all say. Bad in the short term bad in the long-term. The Open Europe one seems to be the most positive. If they all said growth, jobs, prosperity then I'd vote out.

 

[Maldini]

This was expected - the Brexit camp announced a couple of days ago that following an unfortunate week on the economy (culminating in Andrew Neil's request for Kate Hoey to name "any reputable independent study that shows us better off if we leave", to which she responded that she couldn't) they were going to switch to the subject of immigration.

Oh, and the health service. They've read that people like the NHS so by Monday Gove was claiming that staying in the EU would wreck it. Boris has already done "Gay people should vote to leave". IDS seems to have covered "staying in the EU means that you're more likely to get decapitated". The next target could well be dog-lovers.

Whilst on the other hand the Remain camp have conducted themselves impeccably haven't they.

 

[Maldini]

Time to ask another question to the Remain camp which again will go unanswered.

How do you suppose we will deal with the ever increasing population increase due to migrants with regards to:

1/Jobs?
2/Housing?
3/School/Nursery/University places?
4/NHS
5/Doctors/Dentist appointments/treatment?
6/Suppression of wage hikes due to migrants working for peanuts?
7/Security?

 

[sparkie]

Looks like we'll lose 1 month's pay per year ( according to latest international economic study ) if we leave.

Along with up to 8p on income tax it'll be pretty grim.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Looks like we'll lose 1 month's pay per year ( according to latest international economic study ) if we leave.

Along with up to 8p on income tax it'll be pretty grim.

It's all cobblers in my view, because all these things even out at the end of the day. The EU is certainly not worth the money we pay them every day, especially for all the hassle and rules it imposes on us.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Time to ask another question to the Remain camp which again will go unanswered.

How do you suppose we will deal with the ever increasing population increase due to migrants with regards to:

1/Jobs?
2/Housing?
3/School/Nursery/University places?
4/NHS
5/Doctors/Dentist appointments/treatment?
6/Suppression of wage hikes due to migrants working for peanuts?
7/Security?

It's OK for the remainers as long as they don't build new homes next door, or have problems accessing their local services because more people are using it at the same time as government cuts.

 

[Maldini]

Looks like we'll lose 1 month's pay per year ( according to latest international economic study ) if we leave.

Along with up to 8p on income tax it'll be pretty grim.

I wouldn't give much credibility to studies that support either Remain or Brexit.

 

[sten_super]

Time to ask another question to the Remain camp which again will go unanswered.

How do you suppose we will deal with the ever increasing population increase due to migrants with regards to:

1/Jobs?
2/Housing?
3/School/Nursery/University places?
4/NHS
5/Doctors/Dentist appointments/treatment?
6/Suppression of wage hikes due to migrants working for peanuts?
7/Security?

You suppose (and have done in a few places) that more people in the country has no positive impact on the economy or public finances. I've seen a few other Brexit supporters do the same, and it's misguided.

A European working here i) pays taxes and ii) spends money, creating revenues for government and jobs for other people. That's part of the reason why the number (not rate, which is lower) of adults unemployed and economically inactive is similar now to its level in 1991, while the population has increased from 57m to 64m. It's a key reason for the cyclical nature of the economy - increased employment and consumer confidence increases spending in the economy, which creates more employment, which increases spending, etc., and vice versa.

So in answer to your question - an increasing population will create more jobs. Most of the other things that you describe are policy decisions; if the government of the day so wished, huge amounts of housing could be built, new schools, nurseries, universities, hospitals, GP surgerys, dentists could be built (and employees trained up). These immigrants are contributing taxes to government, and it's up to that government how they are spent. I think it's a misnomer to blame migrants for a lower number of these facilities per person, when government policy is the key driver.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You suppose (and have done in a few places) that more people in the country has no positive impact on the economy or public finances. I've seen a few other Brexit supporters do the same, and it's misguided.

A European working here i) pays taxes and ii) spends money, creating revenues for government and jobs for other people. That's part of the reason why the number (not rate, which is lower) of adults unemployed and economically inactive is similar now to its level in 1991, while the population has increased from 57m to 64m. It's a key reason for the cyclical nature of the economy - increased employment and consumer confidence increases spending in the economy, which creates more employment, which increases spending, etc., and vice versa.

So in answer to your question - an increasing population will create more jobs. Most of the other things that you describe are policy decisions; if the government of the day so wished, huge amounts of housing could be built, new schools, nurseries, universities, hospitals, GP surgerys, dentists could be built (and employees trained up). These immigrants are contributing taxes to government, and it's up to that government how they are spent. I think it's a misnomer to blame migrants for a lower number of these facilities per person, when government policy is the key driver.

Not understanding the bolded bit. Can you explain further?

 

[sten_super]

Not understanding the bolded bit. Can you explain further?

My point is that if you take my characterisation of [MENTION=33428]Maldini[/MENTION] 's view to it's logical extension, any increase in working-age population should increase the number of people unemployed or economically inactive (because there's a fixed number of jobs and migrants are 'taking' jobs from the native population). In fact, an additional worker in the economy helps to create new jobs, through spending money. The UK's population has increased by 7m people since 1991, and the economy has created jobs at a suitable rate to stop that additional 7m substantially increasing the number of adults out of work.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I don't cherry pick I've just used studies which are up to date and have been published to coincide with the referendum. I'm not cherry-picking either, it's what they all say. Bad in the short term bad in the long-term. The Open Europe one seems to be the most positive. If they all said growth, jobs, prosperity then I'd vote out.

You say you don't cherry pick then give two specific criteria which conveniently rules out studies that undermine your argument. To answer my previous question, of course there is no way to prove the analysis in the Woodford/Open Europe links are any more likely to be true than the ones you always use which reinforces my point they are all highly speculative and unreliable. The fallback position of unanimity of opinion once again is not accurate.

A final myth, that the mere existence of our group should debunk, is that there are no economists or economic studies favouring Brexit. Many important studies, from the mayor of London’s economics team, Capital Economics, Open Europe, the Centre for Economics and Business Research and the IEA, have suggested that there would be no long-term material losses from Brexit, and in some cases gains.

http://www.cityam.com/239663/brexit...-leaving-the-eu-would-be-good-for-the-economy

Speaking of diverse opinions ..

Ted Cruz: Post-Brexit Britain would be at front of the line for trade deal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-britain-would-be-at-front-of-the-line-for-t/

Some might say he has very little chance of being in power to enact this commitment but at least we know he has more chance than Obama

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Official figures for Eastern European net migration could have been underestimated by more than 50,000 a year in each of the last five years. If so, this would mean that net migration from the EU is actually running at about 220,000 year and that the EU is now the largest source of foreign migration to the UK. It would also mean that total net migration to the UK is currently running at about 375,000 a year.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/380

Looking forward to the ONS publishing their explanation (next month) as to why there is such a huge discrepancy between the supposed EU immigration level and the number of National Insurance numbers given to EU citizens.

 

[El Presidente]

A final myth, that the mere existence of our group should debunk, is that there are no economists or economic studies favouring Brexit. Many important studies, from the mayor of London’s economics team, Capital Economics, Open Europe, the Centre for Economics and Business Research and the IEA, have suggested that there would be no long-term material losses from Brexit, and in some cases gains.

http://www.cityam.com/239663/brexit...-leaving-the-eu-would-be-good-for-the-economy

Patrick Minford, of the group you refer to above, was the old head of my department!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Patrick Minford, of the group you refer to above, was the old head of my department!

No doubt an emminent, highly respected, trustworthy individual who's views and analysis are well worth listening to!

 

[Lincoln Imp]

You say you don't cherry pick then give two specific criteria which conveniently rules out studies that undermine your argument. To answer my previous question, of course there is no way to prove the analysis in the Woodford/Open Europe links are any more likely to be true than the ones you always use which reinforces my point they are all highly speculative and unreliable. The fallback position of unanimity of opinion once again is not accurate.

A final myth, that the mere existence of our group should debunk, is that there are no economists or economic studies favouring Brexit. Many important studies, from the mayor of London’s economics team, Capital Economics, Open Europe, the Centre for Economics and Business Research and the IEA, have suggested that there would be no long-term material losses from Brexit, and in some cases gains.

http://www.cityam.com/239663/brexit...-leaving-the-eu-would-be-good-for-the-economy

Speaking of diverse opinions ..

Ted Cruz: Post-Brexit Britain would be at front of the line for trade deal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-britain-would-be-at-front-of-the-line-for-t/

Some might say he has very little chance of being in power to enact this commitment but at least we know he has more chance than Obama

Yes there have been economists' studies which support Brexit but surely we can all agree that they are far far fewer in number than those that support remain. You mention the CEBR as among those that favour Brexit. Either of us could trawl through CEBR documents to find conclusions that support one view or another but it is worth mentioning that the CEBR itself, on its website, chooses to highlight this: "If we leave the EU and limit immigration, we’ll be worse off. If we leave but stay in the single market, things will get worse initially but then improve". That's pretty nuanced support - and is dependent on the UK allowing free movement of labour which, as far as I can see, is one of the main reasons for people saying they want to leave the EU. The IEA is a well-established think tank but Wikipedia mentions a reputation for being opaque about its funding streams, including money received from tobacco lobbyists. On the face of it the Bank of England and the London School of Economics seem more impressive organisations and note that the latter has predicted that leaving would reduce foreign direct investment into the UK by 22 per cent.

Perhaps it is safer to consider the views of leading Brexiter Kate Hoey, who when asked last week if she could name "any reputable independent study that shows us better off if we leave" replied "Not better off as such."

There is an argument that the Brexiters are making the mistake of trying to win every battle in this war, even when the evidence seems is against them. The poster on here who said he didn't care if he lost his house as a result of leaving, he just wanted to leave was making an interesting point. Maybe the Brexit leaders should listen to what he says and point their campaign more in the direction of tapping populist emotion. It is surely one of the Brexit campaign's strengths.

 

[5ways]

You say you don't cherry pick then give two specific criteria which conveniently rules out studies that undermine your argument. To answer my previous question, of course there is no way to prove the analysis in the Woodford/Open Europe links are any more likely to be true than the ones you always use which reinforces my point they are all highly speculative and unreliable. The fallback position of unanimity of opinion once again is not accurate.

A final myth, that the mere existence of our group should debunk, is that there are no economists or economic studies favouring Brexit. Many important studies, from the mayor of London’s economics team, Capital Economics, Open Europe, the Centre for Economics and Business Research and the IEA, have suggested that there would be no long-term material losses from Brexit, and in some cases gains.

http://www.cityam.com/239663/brexit...-leaving-the-eu-would-be-good-for-the-economy

Speaking of diverse opinions ..

Ted Cruz: Post-Brexit Britain would be at front of the line for trade deal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-britain-would-be-at-front-of-the-line-for-t/

Some might say he has very little chance of being in power to enact this commitment but at least we know he has more chance than Obama

No actual economic stats in that argument or alternative models in that piece. Whereas I have this:

1) The Norway option

What is it: Britain would remain part of the European Economic Area, like Norway, with access to the single market but still have to accept certain EU rules like free movement and directives agreed in Brussels.

GDP: 3.8% lower (than if UK stayed in EU).
Annual cost per household: £2,600
Annual lost tax revenues: £20bn

2) The Canada option

What is it: Britain would sign a bilateral free trade agreement with the EU, like the one Canada has negotiated – an example cited by Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, as a possible option.

GDP: 6.2% lower (than if UK stayed in EU).
Annual cost per household: £4,300
Annual lost tax revenue: £36bn

3) The World Trade Organisation option

What is it: Britain would not sign a standalone trade deal with the EU but instead rely on tariff levels set by the World Trade Organistion.

GDP: 7.5% lower (than if UK stayed in EU).
Annual cost per household: £5,200
Annual lost tax revenue: £45bn

 

[5ways]

 

[Deleted member 22389]

The EU is a tax as well, except the EU is real along with open borders. I have heard it all before, if you vote for this political party you will be (x) amount of pounds worse off every year, it is never right.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yes there have been economists' studies which support Brexit but surely we can all agree that they are far far fewer in number than those that support remain. You mention the CEBR as among those that favour Brexit. Either of us could trawl through CEBR documents to find conclusions that support one view or another but it is worth mentioning that the CEBR itself, on its website, chooses to highlight this: "If we leave the EU and limit immigration, we’ll be worse off. If we leave but stay in the single market, things will get worse initially but then improve". That's pretty nuanced support - and is dependent on the UK allowing free movement of labour which, as far as I can see, is one of the main reasons for people saying they want to leave the EU. The IEA is a well-established think tank but Wikipedia mentions a reputation for being opaque about its funding streams, including money received from tobacco lobbyists. On the face of it the Bank of England and the London School of Economics seem more impressive organisations and note that the latter has predicted that leaving would reduce foreign direct investment into the UK by 22 per cent.

Perhaps it is safer to consider the views of leading Brexiter Kate Hoey, who when asked last week if she could name "any reputable independent study that shows us better off if we leave" replied "Not better off as such."

There is an argument that the Brexiters are making the mistake of trying to win every battle in this war, even when the evidence seems is against them. The poster on here who said he didn't care if he lost his house as a result of leaving, he just wanted to leave was making an interesting point. Maybe the Brexit leaders should listen to what he says and point their campaign more in the direction of tapping populist emotion. It is surely one of the Brexit campaign's strengths.

I agree there are more suggesting negative economic outcomes. I also agree we could all trawl through any of these reports and find nuanced positions, assumptions, possible vested interests, obvious bias, different economic modelling, different emphasis placed on numerous unknowable variables, differing track records in correctly predicting anything, differing margins of error ... which is why I have very little faith in their accuracy. But only one side of the debate treats them as if they are hard evidence or unanimous or conveniently suggests organisations that support their opinions are more impressive or more reputable.

I have seen little evidence that Brexiteers are trying to claim a guaranteed rosy economic future but they are pushing back against the OTT remain economic doomsday predictions. Rightly so.

The Brexit leaders should continue to focus on the very real concerns of the UK public or emotive populism as you would call it. While emphasising the positive case for this country to thrive and prosper outside of the EU.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

No actual economic stats in that argument or alternative models in that piece. Whereas I have this:

1) The Norway option

What is it: Britain would remain part of the European Economic Area, like Norway, with access to the single market but still have to accept certain EU rules like free movement and directives agreed in Brussels.

GDP: 3.8% lower (than if UK stayed in EU).
Annual cost per household: £2,600
Annual lost tax revenues: £20bn

2) The Canada option

What is it: Britain would sign a bilateral free trade agreement with the EU, like the one Canada has negotiated – an example cited by Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, as a possible option.

GDP: 6.2% lower (than if UK stayed in EU).
Annual cost per household: £4,300
Annual lost tax revenue: £36bn

3) The World Trade Organisation option

What is it: Britain would not sign a standalone trade deal with the EU but instead rely on tariff levels set by the World Trade Organistion.

GDP: 7.5% lower (than if UK stayed in EU).
Annual cost per household: £5,200
Annual lost tax revenue: £45bn

So you have moved from a unanimous economic opinion against Brexit being the case to 8 economists and a list of reports more favourable to Brexit not being adequate and you reply with the hilarious Treasury analysis?