The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[sten_super]

Coming back to your point,I wonder how many economists thought the disaster that is the Euro was a good idea.

I answered it with points you could not address. How many of those 'top economists' supported the setting up of the Euro? How many supported us joining the Euro? How many predicted the last financial disaster or the one before that? How long does it take for economic forecasts from organisations like the OBR, IMF, OECD to be proved wrong? If any of these chancers had any long standing record of getting predictions right they wouldn't be economists they would be sitting on their own private island after succesfully playing the markets. Apologies to any economists on NSC obviously.

We've rather shifted from my original point, which was that to state that it's a debate with no professional consensus is not true. You can disparage the worth of those views, but it's undeniable that there is at least a broad agreement amongst the profession.

On the Euro question; I have no idea how many of those surveyed wanted to join the Euro (and I've not been able to find a comparable survey, although one may exist). With hindsight the right decision looks to have been made, for very good evidence-based reasons. Even amongst economists that may have supported it at the time, I doubt that many wanted entry "at any cost".

My professional and personal view is that there are a number of solid arguments for voting for Brexit, but that the economic impact isn't one of them. Those trying to argue that Brexit will not incur any medium-term costs to the economy are simply wrong, and those arguing that the long-term economic benefits are greater than the medium-term costs are on pretty shaky ground (but a case can be made). I'm confident saying that my take on the balance of probabilities is that there will be a net economic cost to leaving the EU.

This brings us back to the negative campaign that both sides have run. The Brexit campaign (IMHO) should be that the benefits of leaving, in terms of regained sovereignty, reduced immigration, public sector finances retained, outweigh the costs, and the Remain campaign should be that the benefits of staying, in terms of trade volumes and jobs are greater than the costs. Squabbling about the economic costs and benefits does no side any favours and narrows the argument substantially.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I assume it's only the EU that invents new drugs then ?

What's the location of an invention got to do with the current and future legislative systems for marketing and maintaining new pharmaceuticals in the UK?

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

Flippin eck,I'm part Italian,born in the UK(O really Maldini we had no idea) yet I'm more concerned about being over run with foreigners than people who are 100% British.I don't get it.

Sad really, wanting to pull up the ladder.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

CETA includes financial services agreements.

Financial services are an important component of the agreement, so much so that a whole chapter is devoted to facilitating trade and investment in this sector. Apparently, the financial services chapter was one of the last chapters of CETA on which Canada and the European Union reached an agreement (Whittington 2014).

https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/cigi_paper_no.91_web.pdf

But this is not the same as the full access we have now obviously. The point is Canada (x country) negotiates a deal with the EU which focuses on their major sectors. As our financial sector is far more significant and important ensuring ongoing access would be a major objective of any post Brexit negotiations. Even in a worse case scenario a country (Switzerland) with a well established global presence manages to run a very successful Banking/financial sector outside the EU.

Your initial position was we have to allow free movement to get access to the EU free market, Canada is just one of many examples that show this isn't the case. For your Canada had to allow see negotiated mutually agreed and beneficial visa arrangement.

The point on the time (7 years?!) it is taking to negotiate and get final ratification is a good economic reason for leaving the EU. Having to satisfy 28 separate countries trade demands many completely contradictory when negotiating with other countries causes absurd amounts of unnecessary delay damaging our chances of forging and expanding new opportunities in developing markets.

Also Canada didn't start from a better platform they negotiated from scratch. We know we already comply with all EU regulations and standards across every sector therefore our renegotiation will not have to start from page 1.

The fact is though there is no European country that has access to the single market that does not have to accept freedom of movement of workers and paying into the EU budget as part of conditions of the access. I don't see why that would be any different for the UK. You can't really compare us, a potential former EU member mere miles from the European mainland who carry out 50% of our trade with the EU, to a country half the world away. It follows then that two of the central arguments for leaving the EU are based on fantasy. Firstly that we would have control over our borders. Secondly, and probably more significantly, we would still have to pay into EU but this time without having any representation on the inside. Just accept the terms that they handed down. That doesn't sound very democratic.

 

[narly101]

I wouldn't worry people - the new £9.3m leaflet being sent out to all UK Households should clear the air and give you all the unbiased facts you want from a pro-Euro government.

 

[sparkie]

I wouldn't worry people - the new £9.3m leaflet being sent out to all UK Households should clear the air and give you all the unbiased facts you want from a pro-Euro government.

Another way of putting it would be to say a leaflet that presents the reasons why the government has taken a position to remain in the EU.

So, did the 'bias' create the reasons, or did the reasons create the 'bias' ?

 

[heathgate]

The fact is though there is no European country that has access to the single market that does not have to accept freedom of movement of workers and paying into the EU budget as part of conditions of the access. I don't see why that would be any different for the UK. You can't really compare us, a potential former EU member mere miles from the European mainland who carry out 50% of our trade with the EU, to a country half the world away. It follows then that two of the central arguments for leaving the EU are based on fantasy. Firstly that we would have control over our borders. Secondly, and probably more significantly, we would still have to pay into EU but this time without having any representation on the inside. Just accept the terms that they handed down. That doesn't sound very democratic.

So if we sign up to Schengen, then we will have ID cards...?....

"The UK declined to sign up to the Schengen Agreement, one argument being that, for an island nation, frontier controls are a better and less intrusive way to prevent illegal immigration than other measures, such as identity cards, residence permits, and registration with the police, which are appropriate for countries with "extensive and permeable land borders".

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Westdene Seagull]

What's the location of an invention got to do with the current and future legislative systems for marketing and maintaining new pharmaceuticals in the UK?

I guess it was a poor flippant remark trying to point out that the world of pharmaceuticals won't grind to a halt if the UK has to create it's own system. There's nothing tying us to the EU system and equally nothing preventing us from replicating it if we leave the EU.

 

[5ways]

I answered it with points you could not address. How many of those 'top economists' supported the setting up of the Euro? How many supported us joining the Euro? How many predicted the last financial disaster or the one before that? How long does it take for economic forecasts from organisations like the OBR, IMF, OECD to be proved wrong? If any of these chancers had any long standing record of getting predictions right they wouldn't be economists they would be sitting on their own private island after succesfully playing the markets. Apologies to any economists on NSC obviously.

This is throwing up a straw man to avoid the main point. Some will have supported the Euro, some will not have. What unifies them is firstly that they are 'top economists' by the most respected financial paper in the world, and that, regardless of their other predictions, they agree on this. There is more than a little smoke to go with the fire. Why is that? because the fundamentals points in the same direction. These people are not carbon copies.

What you're saying is, basically, they might be wrong - let's just see what happens. These people have not got to where they are by being 'chancers'. Nor has Tony Bloom whose business is similarly about forecasting, data and prediction.
https://next.ft.com/content/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250

If you don't like those FT surveyed economists I wonder how much truck the Bank of England holds with you?

Domestic risks

EU referendum

9. The FPC has considered the channels through which uncertainty associated with the 23 June referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, and any period of extended uncertainty following the vote, could increase risks to financial stability.

10. The Committee noted that the effect of uncertainty has been most marked in sterling spot and options markets. Looking ahead, heightened and prolonged uncertainty has the potential to increase the risk premia investors require on a wider range of UK assets, which could lead to a further depreciation of sterling and affect the cost and availability of financing for a broad range of UK borrowers.

11. These pressures have the potential to reinforce existing vulnerabilities for financial stability. The UK current account deficit remains high by historical and international standards. The financing of that deficit is reliant on continuing material inflows of portfolio and foreign direct investment. Those flows have contributed to the financing of the public sector financial deficit and corporate investment, including in commercial real estate. Heightened uncertainty could test the capacity of core funding markets at a time when the liquidity of these markets has shown signs of fragility across advanced economies. In addition, the impact of a decision of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union could spill over to the euro area, driving up risk premia and further diminishing the prospects for growth there.

12. The Committee assesses the risks around the referendum to be the most significant near-term domestic risks to financial stability. It will continue to monitor the channels of risk closely and support mitigating actions where possible. In that regard, the FPC has considered the results of the 2014 stress test of major UK banks, which incorporated an abrupt change in capital flows, a sharp depreciation of sterling, a marked increase in unemployment and a prolonged recession. The results of that test, when combined with revised bank capital plans, suggested that the banking system was strong enough to continue to serve households and businesses during the severe shock1. Since then, UK banks' resilience has increased further.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2016/032.aspx
Also if 76 out of 100 top economists said Brexit would be good for Britain's economy, don't you think the Outters would have told us that?

 

[glasfryn]

Liam Fox is sending his IN pamphlet back to downing street
first good idea he has had

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I guess it was a poor flippant remark trying to point out that the world of pharmaceuticals won't grind to a halt if the UK has to create it's own system. There's nothing tying us to the EU system and equally nothing preventing us from replicating it if we leave the EU.

You clearly have no idea of the years and decades spent arriving at the current streamlined process and legislation that Europe follows and benefits from. This can't simply be replicated overnight.

 

[Buzzer]

Anyone have any thoughts on how we might get new human medicines approved in the UK should their be a vote to leave the EU? Currently, such products are authorised across the EU following European Medicines Agency and CHMD assessment. Come to think of it, how would any such products, already authorised still be valid for marketing in the UK?

It makes you wonder how Norwegians and Icelanders stay so healthy with no medicines available in their countries.

Or how, again from a purely legislative viewpoint, how we might then export pharmaceutical products into the single market?

Another good question. I presume Novartis, 2nd largest pharmaceutical company in the world hide them inside lots of chocolate and then smuggle them across the Switzerland border into Germany where Dodgy Dieter then sells under the counter to hospitals and chemists.

You've completely convinced me with your preposterous scare story of the health care system grinding to a halt in the event of Brexit. I'm definitely changing my vote now.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

It makes you wonder how Norwegians and Icelanders stay so healthy with no medicines available in their countries .

Both countries are members of the EEA and are therefore included on any EU marketing authorisation for pharmaceutical products. Their legislation in this area has to be identical to that used in the EU but they have no say in it's development etc, they just have to legislate nationally what they're given. The UK could go down this route and remain within the EEA.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Buzzer]

A lot less economists supported joining the Euro that you are making out. It never even got started. The warnings from all over the globe and huge bodies like the OECD, that are seen as the leading light at G20 summits are warning of grave consequences of a Brexit. You just choose to ignore it, with blind faith in the UK to be able to secure a seemingly impossible deal. Rule Brittania (waves small flag).

On 6th June 2001, 15 top economists wrote to the FT urging Britain to join the Euro. Amongst those signatories was a Professor Peter Spencer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1371736.stm

Now, fast forward to 2016 and guess whose name pops up in that list of 76 urging the UK to stay in the EU? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html#axzz458heII5G

There's probably others but I can't find the list of 15 signatories. This bloke is one of the top economists in the UK and he got the Euro spectacularly wrong. Forgive my cynicism but I'm going to take any expert advice from top economists with a pinch of salt.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Excuse the Norway example as I don't want not get hung up on a technical error. Free movement is not a principle, that's why some like us are outside of the Shengen Agreement, its an economic instrument. We are hardly likely to sign up for it if its one of the main reasons for leaving. The EU knows this they also understand the gains from Trade so will deal, we are not being threatened with a trade war. The UK became the first industrialised Nation without immigration, and emigration only began after success. Your whole premise is absurd.

Free movement of people and trade are separate issues. Don't try to connect them and demand I pass judgement on them, it is THAT that is the straw man argument.

Of course I excuse your Norway error. I am afraid though that you are completely confusing free movement with the Schengen Agreement. Free movement was a founding principle of what is now the EU. It is what we signed up to. It what we adhere to. It applies across the union. And it is what we will have to agree to if we wish to negotiate open access to the single market. Many people feel we can cut a more conventional trade deal without agreeing to free movement. This would not however be the same as access to the single market. And free movement is not the Schengen Agreement.

There IS an absurd premise floating about here, but it ain't mine.

 

[Triggaaar]

This is throwing up a straw man to avoid the main point. Some will have supported the Euro, some will not have. What unifies them is firstly that they are 'top economists'

That's an axymoron. If they supported the Euro, they can't be top economists.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So, a nation which has just shrunk it's state to the bare-bone is now going to be able to successfully negotiate and put in place trade agreements, rules, standards and regulations for myriad sectors of trade and commerce across myriad countries and territories? How long do the outers estimate this will take the 4 remaining civil servants? And can I have a pint of what you've been drinking please.

 

[Buzzer]

So, a nation which has just shrunk it's state to the bare-bone is now going to be able to successfully negotiate and put in place trade agreements, rules, standards and regulations for myriad sectors of trade and commerce across myriad countries and territories? How long do the outers estimate this will take the 4 remaining civil servants? And can I have a pint of what you've been drinking please.

As at the end of 2015 there were 406,000 civil servants. I'm not sure how long it will take the 4 civil servants to complete all those agreements but we could ask the other 405,996 civil servants to perhaps help with my calculations seeing as they are all sitting around doing nothing.

 

[Buzzer]

Also if 76 out of 100 top economists said Brexit would be good for Britain's economy, don't you think the Outters would have told us that?

So what's the minimum number of economic experts necessary for their opinion to be taken as gospel? It's clearly higher than 15 and you have it lower than or equal to 76.

But what about all the other experts who also supported us joining the Euro? They provided their expert opinion too and that's got to count for something. There was Europe 21, a group of business leaders who were firmly in favour of the Euro. Obviously experts in their field. They got it wrong. And then the CBI. A huge organisation crammed full of business leaders, all experts in their field. They got it wrong. And then there's all the politicians, Conservative Mainstream, Labour Movement for Europe and the entire Lib Dems each one numbering in their thousands and in amongst that and especially at Parliamentary level some world-leading experts. They all got it wrong too.

Literally hundreds and hundreds of experts got it wrong over the Euro.

 

[Two Professors]

If I remember correctly from my school days,the definition of an economist is someone too cowardly to teach Mathematics and not clever enough to be a banker,but over-qualified to be a dustman!