The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[Soulman]

The shock is growth and jobs. I'm 25 and the last thing I need is another recession - having graduated in the previous one. The EU is a good pinata for any gripe - and I'm not saying there are not problems.

So how do you explain the recessions in 1982 and 1990 when i thought " the last thing I need is another recession".....only to see another in 2007.

 

[5ways]

So how do you explain the recessions in 1982 and 1990 when i thought " the last thing I need is another recession".....only to see another in 2007.

I don't know the causes of those recessions - 2007 was a housing bubble in the US subprime mortgage sector. Our weak recovery from that does not need a body-blow from tearing ourselves out of our free trade agreements and untrammeled access to the destination of half our exports.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It was never OTT doomsday - it was always there will be a negative economic impact both in terms of a short-term shock and long-term damage.

They've really cherry picked their sentences from the report and managed to avoid reading the executive summary. No one is deny the economy will grow between now and 2030.

what it says in full:

Figure 5.2 shows the level of real UK GDP under the three scenarios. Compared to 2015 levels, real UK GDP
would be 39% larger in the FTA scenario and 36% larger in the WTO scenario in 2030. Nonetheless, the level of
UK GDP would still be lower in 2030 under both the WTO and FTA scenarios than under the counterfactual
scenario (GDP grows by 41% over the same period) where the UK remains part of the EU. However, one should
not overstate this difference, which amounts to less than one year of trend growth in the FTA scenario and less
than two years of trend growth in the WTO scenario.

The economy will grow and create jobs outside the EU as is the nature of capitalism. But it will create less growth and less jobs, with higher unemployment.

As they say in the exec sum:

We estimate that total UK GDP in 2020 could be between around 3% and 5.5% lower under
the FTA and WTO scenarios respectively than if the UK remains in the EU. In both cases, the
largest short-term impact on the economy is felt through the additional uncertainty that would result
from a UK vote to leave. The negative impact represents a reduction of around £55-100 billion in UK
GDP, at 2015 values.
 By 2030 this post-exit uncertainty should be resolved, but we estimate that the net longer term impact of
other changes related to EU exit could result in total UK GDP in 2030 being between 1.2% and
3.5% lower in our two exit scenarios than if the UK remains in the EU (around £25-65
billion, at 2015 values). This reflects the potential negative economic impacts of increased barriers to
trade and labour mobility after EU exit, offset in part by potential benefits from lower regulatory burdens
and fiscal savings from no longer paying net budgetary contributions to the EU.


http://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/leaving-the-eu-implications-for-the-uk-economy.pdf

The staying in campaign have floated numerous OTT doomsday scenarios. Yes this one cherry picks alternative scenarios based on numerous unknowable assumptions and surprise surprise guesses we would probably be better staying in but at least it acknowledges we have a prosperous and healthy future if we leave.Progress of a sort I suppose!

 

[Soulman]

I don't know the causes of those recessions - 2007 was a housing bubble in the US subprime mortgage sector. Our weak recovery from that does not need a body-blow from tearing ourselves out of our free trade agreements and untrammeled access to the destination of half our exports.

I suppose as you are 25 you would not know about the 82 and 90 recessions, but you seem to have this idea that because the recession that hit you as you were at uni was a "global" thing and we were part of the EU, that to leave would send us spinning into recession..... i was merely stating that we were in the EU when the previous recessions occurred.
Other EU countries like France, Holland and Germany have over 50% of people that also would like a referendum.....so all is not happy eh.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Germany have over 50% of people that also would like a referendum.

Oh no. Have you been reading [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] links again ?

 

[Soulman]

The CBI has previously faced criticism that it is the "voice of Brussels". The group received €200,000 (£155,000) from the EU last year, mostly to fund polling activities.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The CBI has previously faced criticism that it is the "voice of Brussels". The group received €200,000 (£155,000) from the EU last year, mostly to fund polling activities.

Desperate.

 

[5ways]

I suppose as you are 25 you would not know about the 82 and 90 recessions, but you seem to have this idea that because the recession that hit you as you were at uni was a "global" thing and we were part of the EU, that to leave would send us spinning into recession..... i was merely stating that we were in the EU when the previous recessions occurred.
Other EU countries like France, Holland and Germany have over 50% of people that also would like a referendum.....so all is not happy eh.

Who wants a referendum on EU exit?
France: 53%
Sweden: 49%
Spain: 47%
Germany: 45%
Poland: 39%
Ireland: 38%
(LeMonde)

 

[GT49er]

Desperate.

Desperate to carry on getting that sort of bunce, no?

 

[Soulman]

Who wants a referendum on EU exit?
France: 53%
Sweden: 49%
Spain: 47%
Germany: 45%
Poland: 39%
Ireland: 38%
(LeMonde)

Obviously your source did not mention the Dutch.
A majority of people in the Netherlands want a referendum to be held on Dutch membership of the EU similar to the one taking place in Britain in June, according to a new poll by Maurice de Hond. In his weekly survey of Dutch political opinion, De Hond found 53% support a referendum in the Netherlands

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Dutch also want EU membership referendum, poll shows http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/02/dutch-also-want-a-eu-membership-referendum-poll-shows/

 

[GT49er]

Obviously your source did not mention the Dutch.
A majority of people in the Netherlands want a referendum to be held on Dutch membership of the EU similar to the one taking place in Britain in June, according to a new poll by Maurice de Hond. In his weekly survey of Dutch political opinion, De Hond found 53% support a referendum in the Netherlands

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Dutch also want EU membership referendum, poll shows http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/02/dutch-also-want-a-eu-membership-referendum-poll-shows/

Let's face it (though Europhiles can't) - huge numbers of people enmeshed in the EU want out.

 

[Soulman]

Let's face it (though Europhiles can't) - huge numbers of people enmeshed in the EU want out.

Yes they do.

 

[Soulman]

Desperate.

True though.

 

[pastafarian]

The CBI has previously faced criticism that it is the "voice of Brussels". The group received €200,000 (£155,000) from the EU last year, mostly to fund polling activities.

Im surprised anyone takes the CBI seriously with regards to Europe
Even the guardians financial editor is critical of them,perhaps he is "desperate" as well.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...09/vote-leave-cbi-stunt-nuance-free-eu-stance

Yet, on the narrow issue of the CBI’s utterances on Europe, there is a fair criticism to make. The problem is not that the CBI gets 0.6% of its funding from the European commission for use of its economic surveys – the percentage is so small it is not worth making a fuss about.

Rather, the difficulty is twofold. First, CBI wonks, while championing the virtues of the UK staying in a “reformed” EU, always refuse to say which of its desired reforms, if undelivered, would be a deal-breaker, if any. The position looks a cop-out.

The second factor is the breezy confidence with which CBI leaders talk about what business “thinks” about Europe. It is people, not organisations, who do the thinking and any single company is likely to contain a range of views. The CBI is probably right that most directors are favourably inclined towards the EU, but its tone is often too dogmatic. “Business must be crystal-clear that membership is in our national interest,” said recently retired president Sir Mike Rake in May. No room for nuance there.

Paul Drechsler, Rake’s successor, did at least nod to some of the criticisms on Sunday by acknowledging that there is no uniform business view of EU membership. But then he spoiled the effect by arguing that “business leaders should let their employees, communities, customers and suppliers know what the referendum means for growth and jobs”.

Let them know? This is not Downton Abbey, and employees are not waiting breathlessly to be told what to think by their bosses.

 

[beorhthelm]

Desperate.

indeed it is, you'd have thought institutions could fund their own polling and research. but thats the EU way, feathering the nests, paying for groups to spread the word.

 

[sir albion]

indeed it is, you'd have thought institutions could fund their own polling and research. but thats the EU way, feathering the nests, paying for groups to spread the word.

Maybe the plonkers in Brussels will slip the IN camp a few billion in a desperate bid....Wouldn't put anything past that lot.

 

[Buzzer]

This looks fun: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/busin...ss-_-403380141-_-Imageandlink&linkId=22500525

"Brexit to cause ‘£100bn shock to UK economy’"

It's a funny old world. Moody, one of the biggest credit ratings companies in the world published their own findings yesterday and they concluded that:

"Our central view is that the negative economic impact of Brexit would be relatively small," .

"...do not expect to see significant increases in unemployment or [interest] rates, or substantial declines in property prices across the UK as a whole. We expect that, over time, the UK and EU would come to an arrangement to preserve most - but probably not all - of the current trading relationships, thereby limiting the impact on UK exporters and supply chains of UK importers. Although there are clear downside risks to the City of London's standing as a global financial centre, in our central scenario we do not see Brexit materially damaging its strong position."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/moodys-eu-referendum-brexit-economic-analysis-2016-3

They did issue a caveat to this and warned that there was a risk due to uncertainty but if you take the previous comments into account it's apparently relatively small.

And I think we can all agree that Moody's opinion is completely impartial so I think it's fair to conclude that the CBI/PWC report is most definitely calculated with the very worst case scenarios and models.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

It's a funny old world. Moody, one of the biggest credit ratings companies in the world published their own findings yesterday and they concluded that:

"Our central view is that the negative economic impact of Brexit would be relatively small," .

"...do not expect to see significant increases in unemployment or [interest] rates, or substantial declines in property prices across the UK as a whole. We expect that, over time, the UK and EU would come to an arrangement to preserve most - but probably not all - of the current trading relationships, thereby limiting the impact on UK exporters and supply chains of UK importers. Although there are clear downside risks to the City of London's standing as a global financial centre, in our central scenario we do not see Brexit materially damaging its strong position."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/moodys-eu-referendum-brexit-economic-analysis-2016-3

They did issue a caveat to this and warned that there was a risk due to uncertainty but if you take the previous comments into account it's apparently relatively small.

And I think we can all agree that Moody's opinion is completely impartial so I think it's fair to conclude that the CBI/PWC report is most definitely calculated with the very worst case scenarios and models.

As you say, it's a funny old world.

Some may take comfort from Moody's view that unemployment figures and interest rates will not rise 'significantly', that property prices will not decline 'substantially', that 'most but not all' trading relationships will be preserved, that the impact on exporters would be 'limited' and that the 'clear downside risks' to the City will not be materially damaging (according to one of Moody's scenarios anyway).

Others might feel that as recommendations in favour of leaving the EU go, this one is a bit, you know, hedged.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

...talking of trading relationships there is an interesting piece in The Times today that criticises Boris's claim that the Canada-EU trade negotiations are any sort of model for a post-Brexit UK. Apart from any other problems there is the issue that any agreement has to be ratified by 27 (or 26) separate legislatures, many of which seen no special reason to rush through a deal with the UK. As the piece concludes... "Those who claim that the UK can pick and choose what it wants in any future agreement have clearly never negotiated a trade deal. Take it from me, you never know at the start what you will get out of it at the end."

The author, once Canada's international trade minister, is presumably, like Moody's, impartial.

 

[5ways]

It's a funny old world. Moody, one of the biggest credit ratings companies in the world published their own findings yesterday and they concluded that:

"Our central view is that the negative economic impact of Brexit would be relatively small," .

"...do not expect to see significant increases in unemployment or [interest] rates, or substantial declines in property prices across the UK as a whole. We expect that, over time, the UK and EU would come to an arrangement to preserve most - but probably not all - of the current trading relationships, thereby limiting the impact on UK exporters and supply chains of UK importers. Although there are clear downside risks to the City of London's standing as a global financial centre, in our central scenario we do not see Brexit materially damaging its strong position."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/moodys-eu-referendum-brexit-economic-analysis-2016-3

They did issue a caveat to this and warned that there was a risk due to uncertainty but if you take the previous comments into account it's apparently relatively small.

And I think we can all agree that Moody's opinion is completely impartial so I think it's fair to conclude that the CBI/PWC report is most definitely calculated with the very worst case scenarios and models.

It's not most definitely calculated with the very worst case scenarios only. It takes a pessimistic, optimistic and probable view. The probable view is still negative - as it is with Moody's. I'm pleased they think the impact is relatively small - but it is still a negative impact which is unnecessary and damaging.

They argue that
"A decision for the UK to exit the European Union ('Brexit') would result in prolonged uncertainty and would be credit negative for UK-based companies such as the auto, manufacturing, food and beverage, and service sectors, says Moody's Investors Service today. Many companies would likely curb investments until the implications of a Brexit become clear for trade, investment, regulations and labour costs."