[Politics] Brexit

[portslade seagull]

Yawn

 

[Lincoln Imp]

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.

Go on with you - Brexiteers would place huge faith in economic forecasts prepared by prestigious organisations if they could find more than one or two that support Brexit.

 

[beorhthelm]

i always find it scary when people in positions of authority make deliberatly misleading statements. not earning somthing is not a tax, or like a tax, so wtf is the OECD on about? makes you think though doesnt it, how important we are to world economy that he worries enough to make a statement on the matter.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

makes you think though doesnt it, how important we are to world economy that he worries enough to make a statement on the matter.

I imagine he was asked, given he was on Radio 4 in an interview.

 

[5ways]

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?

I still don't know why the Treasury analysis is not sound - Mark Carney said it was pretty much right. I don't think it's been debunked just a few threads pulled from it. Also it is near unanimous opinion that Brexit is bad bad bad and I refer you to the FT economist survey of people ITK. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html

 

[5ways]

Backing up that picture with substance this is what the OECD said today:

"
The OECD’s contribution adds to the overwhelming support from the economics profession for the UK remaining in the EU — unlike the disagreement among economists in the late 1990s over whether Britain should adopt the euro.

The report differs from the Treasury’s analysis in seeking to estimate both the short-term effect of leaving the EU on economic growth and the longer-term consequences.

Its central scenario estimates that the uncertainty caused by Britain seeking to leave the EU by late 2018 would reduce confidence and hold back spending immediately.

That would knock 3 per cent off gross domestic product by 2020, the report says, and also hit the rest of the EU economy by 1 per cent relative to its output if the UK remained a member.

In the longer term, it calculates that more restrictive trading arrangements with the EU alongside less competition, lower foreign direct investment and fewer skilled immigrants, would hit
gross domestic product by a central estimate of 5 per cent, slightly less than the Treasury’s 6.2 per cent figure.

The organisation says there would be a big cost to the public finances because tax revenues lost would easily outweigh any savings from lower net contributions to the EU budget.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eda98e66-0c48-11e6-9cd4-2be898308be3.html

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Backing up that picture with substance this is what the OECD said today:

"
The OECD’s contribution adds to the overwhelming support from the economics profession for the UK remaining in the EU — unlike the disagreement among economists in the late 1990s over whether Britain should adopt the euro.

The report differs from the Treasury’s analysis in seeking to estimate both the short-term effect of leaving the EU on economic growth and the longer-term consequences.

Its central scenario estimates that the uncertainty caused by Britain seeking to leave the EU by late 2018 would reduce confidence and hold back spending immediately.

That would knock 3 per cent off gross domestic product by 2020, the report says, and also hit the rest of the EU economy by 1 per cent relative to its output if the UK remained a member.

In the longer term, it calculates that more restrictive trading arrangements with the EU alongside less competition, lower foreign direct investment and fewer skilled immigrants, would hit
gross domestic product by a central estimate of 5 per cent, slightly less than the Treasury’s 6.2 per cent figure.

The organisation says there would be a big cost to the public finances because tax revenues lost would easily outweigh any savings from lower net contributions to the EU budget.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eda98e66-0c48-11e6-9cd4-2be898308be3.html

Basically carry on as we are, keep migration running at 350,000+ year on year with absolutely zero plans on how to deal with all the extra people, and what happens if we Remain and go in to recession? Not one of these financial experts talk about our quality of life at the end of all this, it is because they have already enjoy a fantastic quality of life and live on a different planet.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Go on with you - Brexiteers would place huge faith in economic forecasts prepared by prestigious organisations if they could find more than one or two that support Brexit.

The reports may be used as an additional background reason but we both know the vast majority of people who are voting to leave aren't motivated by future predictions on economic growth. Self governance/sovereignty, immigration, and resentment about having to pay billions year in year out to an organisation that appears to be in crisis/failing are front and centre . Whereas the remain side is mainly about the possibility of having a bit more GDP sometime in the future .... rather uninspiring and depressing.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I still don't know why the Treasury analysis is not sound - Mark Carney said it was pretty much right. I don't think it's been debunked just a few threads pulled from it. Also it is near unanimous opinion that Brexit is bad bad bad and I refer you to the FT economist survey of people ITK. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html

Well if we first ignore the fact that the Treasury analysis may possibly have a vested interest in supporting the Government then remember the Treasury/ government aren't even trusted to make short term forecasts for our economy hence the setting up of the OBR then take into account a few other problems the Leave camp identify ....

Key points

The £4,300 figure is based on the Government breaking its promise to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.

If there were 6% fewer households than are currently predicted for 2030 due to lower net migration, there would be no reduction in household income at all (even assuming the Treasury are right that GDP would be 6.2% smaller in 2030 than it otherwise might have been).

The report fails to take account of savings from cutting the cost of EU regulation if we Vote Leave, which the Treasury has previously admitted are as high as 7% of GDP, or £4,638 per household.

The Government calculates its £4,300 figure by dividing a putative 6.2% lesser increase in GDP by 2030 by the current number of households – this is just another example of the Government using dodgy numbers.

The report downplays or ignores other benefits of leaving the EU, including striking free trade agreements with major emerging economies and cutting the UK’s budget contributions.

At no point does the report state that the UK economy will contract if we Vote Leave. The Treasury report admits that the UK will grow if it strikes a free trade deal with the EU.

Responding to the publication of HM Treasury’s assessment of the costs and benefits of EU membership, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt. Hon. Lord Lamont of Lerwick said:

'They say economists put a decimal point in their forecasts to show that they have a sense of humour. The Chancellor has endorsed a forecast which looks 14 years ahead and predicts a fall in GDP of less than 0.5 per cent a year – well within the margin of error. Few forecasts are right for 14 months, let alone 14 years. Such precision is spurious, and entirely unbelievable.'

I would say calling it sound is very generous.

 

[5ways]

Basically carry on as we are, keep migration running at 350,000+ year on year with absolutely zero plans on how to deal with all the extra people, and what happens if we Remain and go in to recession? Not one of these financial experts talk about our quality of life at the end of all this, it is because they have already enjoy a fantastic quality of life and live on a different planet.

I'm not being a knob here but I'm almost certain migration will go up regardless of the outcome. The levels might fall but the total will keep ticking up.

 

[5ways]

Well if we first ignore the fact that the Treasury analysis may possibly have a vested interest in supporting the Government then remember the Treasury/ government aren't even trusted to make short term forecasts for our economy hence the setting up of the OBR then take into account a few other problems the Leave camp identify ....

Key points

The £4,300 figure is based on the Government breaking its promise to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.

If there were 6% fewer households than are currently predicted for 2030 due to lower net migration, there would be no reduction in household income at all (even assuming the Treasury are right that GDP would be 6.2% smaller in 2030 than it otherwise might have been).

The report fails to take account of savings from cutting the cost of EU regulation if we Vote Leave, which the Treasury has previously admitted are as high as 7% of GDP, or £4,638 per household.

The Government calculates its £4,300 figure by dividing a putative 6.2% lesser increase in GDP by 2030 by the current number of households – this is just another example of the Government using dodgy numbers.

The report downplays or ignores other benefits of leaving the EU, including striking free trade agreements with major emerging economies and cutting the UK’s budget contributions.

At no point does the report state that the UK economy will contract if we Vote Leave. The Treasury report admits that the UK will grow if it strikes a free trade deal with the EU.

Responding to the publication of HM Treasury’s assessment of the costs and benefits of EU membership, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt. Hon. Lord Lamont of Lerwick said:

'They say economists put a decimal point in their forecasts to show that they have a sense of humour. The Chancellor has endorsed a forecast which looks 14 years ahead and predicts a fall in GDP of less than 0.5 per cent a year – well within the margin of error. Few forecasts are right for 14 months, let alone 14 years. Such precision is spurious, and entirely unbelievable.'

I would say calling it sound is very generous.

Gotcha.

 

[5ways]

The reports may be used as an additional background reason but we both know the vast majority of people who are voting to leave aren't motivated by future predictions on economic growth. Self governance/sovereignty, immigration, and resentment about having to pay billions year in year out to an organisation that appears to be in crisis/failing are front and centre . Whereas the remain side is mainly about the possibility of having a bit more GDP sometime in the future .... rather uninspiring and depressing.

They could wax lyrical about European values and geopolitics and culture and the political configuration of the 21st century but is that something people really connect to? From a foreign policy/geopolitical perspective I think there is an excellent argument for remain but does that connect with the masses?

 

[Maldini]

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.

So many myths but myths do stick.

A European working here will only replace the tax a British worker would have paid so this myth that we benefit financially from foreign workers needs to be stamped out.In fact I would say they pay less tax and contribute less financially if you take into account they have driven wages down therefore pay less tax plus with some of them they send money back to their own country or spend it there/save it here then move home.

The idea the goverment have all this money to spend here,there and everywhere is a nonsense.

Even if what you said were true,it doesn't change the fact we are heading for a time when there will be many parts of the country where a Brit will be outnumbered by foreigners
although I'm sure there are already places like that.

I don't think it's right for here,for Germany,for Italy etc etc.I'm sure most countries would not like a situation like this.

 

[Maldini]

The reports may be used as an additional background reason but we both know the vast majority of people who are voting to leave aren't motivated by future predictions on economic growth. Self governance/sovereignty, immigration, and resentment about having to pay billions year in year out to an organisation that appears to be in crisis/failing are front and centre . Whereas the remain side is mainly about the possibility of having a bit more GDP sometime in the future .... rather uninspiring and depressing.

The nail on the head.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

You haven't even reached the level of simple for me.You're still bacteria swimming around.

Excellent response..........

 

[DataPoint]

This is a phoney referendum. Vote LEAVE then we can start real negotiations. At any time, should we be unhappy with the progress - just vote to REMAIN in a new referendum and put a stop to it. Heads we win - tails we can't loose!

 

[Jim in the West]

This is a phoney referendum. Vote LEAVE then we can start real negotiations. At any time, should we be unhappy with the progress - just vote to REMAIN in a new referendum and put a stop to it. Heads we win - tails we can't loose!

There's another scenario - we vote to leave, and then the politicians start to negotiate. If Cameron & Osborne don't resign, then they'll be leading the negotiations. They will immediately want to secure access to the single market, and the quid pro quo will be free movement of EU nationals within the UK....this will be granted, and we will negotiate a deal with the EU virtually identical to what we have now. This will be put to a vote in parliament, and will be agreed (the Brexiteers are definitely a minority of MPs). So - we will be OUT, but will broadly have the same relationship with the EU.....we have to abide by their rules, but we retain our trading access, etc. The pro-Brexit camp seem to forget that ultimately they may not be able to command the parliamentary majority which will result in them getting their desired wishes on immigration.

 

[Jim in the West]

All you guys in the Remain camp talk about nothing but the economics.

If you bothered to take notice you will see that the biggest gripe the Brexit camp have is regards immigration.

Yes - that's the challenge for the "Bremain" camp. Unfortunately, even trying to set out the facts on immigration won't do:

We desperately need immigrants to do the jobs most Brits don't want to do.
The average immigrant contributes more to the UK economy than the average "native" Brit.
And in terms of immigrants from the EU, the vast majority of them are either university educated, or have some other post-secondary school qualification.

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/98723742-0c5f-11e6-b0f1-61f222853ff3.img

 

[JC Footy Genius]

They could wax lyrical about European values and geopolitics and culture and the political configuration of the 21st century but is that something people really connect to? From a foreign policy/geopolitical perspective I think there is an excellent argument for remain but does that connect with the masses?

They could but I don't think most people will vote remain for any of those reasons. Most are holding their noses and saying better the devil we know which is why the remain camp focus on painting Brexit in such black and white terms.

 

[Soulman]

The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover.
It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...lways-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/