matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
But, again, this just indicates you don't understand how reports like this are written and how they work. If the report relied on predicting the future it would obviously be useless.
Brexit: give me a positive effect... XV
- Thread starter Minio
- Start date
- Status
But, again, this just indicates you don't understand how reports like this are written and how they work. If the report relied on predicting the future it would obviously be useless.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
More important than me and your assumptions about me is hard remainers blaming everything bad on brexit and for the last 6 years. This was predicted.
I’m sure there are bad things directly related to brexit, quite a lot really but crying wolf on a daily basis results in decent points being lost among the chaff to everyone except other hard remainers. A balanced outlook would be better, though that means dropping the standard name-calling, the general spite toward 17.4m people and the sarcasm so adored by hard remainers.
By the way, I look forward to you quoting a post from me where I’ve said Brexit is a good thing. I don’t think you’ll find one. What I adhere to is support of democracy and not just when it goes my way.
lagavullin10y
pfm Member
Its lovely to see all of you still dragging on!
It might morph into a cherished tradition in 300 years time.
It might morph into a cherished tradition in 300 years time.
tonerei
pfm Member
A bit like Morris dancing? If only it was as trivial as that.
Nic Robinson
Moderator
Forgive me, Brian. I thought you voted for it. My bad.
The rest of your post is a wordy version of "gerrover it, you lost". Yes I (my side) lost. And, no. I will never get over it, nor tire of reminding people like you (assuming you did vote for it) have done.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
Yes, of course you do, other hard remainers here think so too. It is necessary to declare 100% support with hard remainers or be an enemy, after all.
My post is nothing to do with ‘gerrover it, you lost’, though I see you continued onto comments against me as though I did say that...’people like me’, etc. Fact is, nobody here knows how I voted but if you want to make up you know and keep reminding everyone of that, go ahead.
I know from other exchanges with you that you hold me in contempt, maybe that’s a general thing, whatever it is it’s not a good look given you don’t know me or anything about me. No matter which way people voted in that referendum, everyone is free in this country to vote for whatever option they choose that is on a ballot paper. The people to be questioned are those who want to ignore the outcome of a democratic referendum, who want it overturned. Campaign for a second referendum by all means ( Labour offered that and were crushed ), but not for ignoring a vote.
We have a system, you can’t support democracy only when a vote goes your way.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
OK. So you're telling me that in 15 years time the GDP growth in this country will be 4% below what it would have been had we remained in the EU?
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
I am saying you should (ideally) read the OBR's work on the impact of Brexit or at lest understand the basis on which the report was made and what exactly the conclusions are and what they mean. Obviously reports like this are almost guaranteed to be wrong in terms of what actually ends up happening because this is the work of economists not mystics. I would also recommend reading the opinions of other academic economists who will explain what it means, put all this into context and offer critiques of the report (which might very well be wrong of course). Twitter is an excellent place to do this sort of thing, The Spectator is the very worst. Brexiteer MPs about as useful as one would expect.
Obviously most people are not going to do that so the report gets reduced to a headline fact reported by the BBC and so on. And in this case the conclusion is that Brexit is broadly speaking twice as damaging to our economy as Covid mostly because Brexit has long-run effects on productivity and trade and Covid is more of an acute but (hopefully!) short term thing. The useful thing from an economics point of view is that people already understand the meaning and scale of Covid from the last 18 months, so in economic terms so knowing it's half as bad as Brexit allows them to understand the impact in of the latter in a meaningful way. Arguably this is better than the traditional method of converting the GDP deflator to a £ per month per household figure which is problematic for a number of reasons.
russel
./_dazed_and_confused
Erm, actually in a democracy you have every right to campaign against an outcome, especially if a foreign power has influenced the result.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
In response to the first part of your post, the section in bold was already in my post you quoted.
Here is what I said...
Campaign for a second referendum by all means ( Labour offered that and were crushed ), but not for ignoring a vote. We have a system, you can’t support democracy only when a vote goes your way.
You repeatedly mention ‘foreign interference’. If you want to go down that road you need to post evidence of how this foreign power influenced the result. You also need to show the outcome of the legal proceedings that challenged the referendum result on the basis of foreign interference. I would also like to see a link to the legal position where a UK referendum result is proven to have been influenced by a ‘foreign power’.
russel
./_dazed_and_confused
Posted all the reasons a week or so ago, do you want me to repost them?, I also remember pointing out you do not have to prove an athlete gained an advantage if they have taken a banned substance, if you have outside interference in an election it’s invalid.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
We went through all that a week or two ago. Basically, there isn't any. It's accepted that Putin takes any opportunity to divide and weaken the west, of which breaking up the EU would represent something of a feather in his cap, and that Russia has a raft of official and unofficial agencies working to those ends. It is accepted that Russia undoubtedly attempted to influence the result of the referendum via social media.
There is, however, no evidence at all that the outcome of the referendum was thus influenced. The rest is speculation.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
You patronise me on almost every point. You may well be right to do so - economics is your area, and I'm a shopkeeper. I have, however, and despite my modest station, read the OBR report, as it was the first thing I did after your first, curious, reply.
Nic posted a link to a BBC report (it's in the Guardian too) which seemed to state that the long-run effect of Brexit would be a reduction of some 4% of gdp against what would have been the case had we remained in the EU.
I posted a reply in which I assumed that 'long-run' meant 15 years, as in the earlier Treasury estimations, and simply pointed out that the situation in 15 years time would depend entirely upon developments both here and in the EU in the intervening period, and followed it up by saying that, unless the models accommodated a range of potential scenarios, such a prediction is impossible, and that a 'simple' prediction could only be based upon assumption of the status quo.
Having skimmed through the OBR report, I see the regular use of the word 'estimate', and much reference to the fact that the current (it actually is several months old) report 'updates' earlier reports, i.e takes into account developments that have taken place in the period in between two reports. Now you, having said twice that I don't understand these things, affirm that economists aren't indeed mystics, and can't see into the future, which I think is exactly what I had said in the first place.
Now either we're talking at cross purposes, or you are just trying to belittle me as a know-nothing Brexiteer.
If, in yesterday's budget, the Chancellor had set out a radical plan for supply-side reform, in which, for example, he had addressed the UK's laggard productivity and low cost/low value economy by creating substantial government support for corporate technological investment, revamped tertiary education to address the loss of technical colleges and apprenticeships, and put in place mid to long term support for workers to transition out of low and into high skill/value jobs, we might have potentially seen a closing of that 4% 'long-run' estimate. This is what I mean when I refer to (successive) government policy.
Your final point is lost on me, incidentally, as I don't think I've ever attempted to compare an economy to a household. I think you're making assumptions.
Somafunk
pfm Member
Not quite,
Despite pressing questions, the report said the government had shown little interest in investigating whether the Brexit referendum was targeted by Russia. The government responded that it had “seen no evidence of successful interference in the E.U. referendum” and dismissed the need for further investigation.
But the committee suggested that the reason no evidence had been uncovered was because nobody had looked for it.
“In response to our request for written evidence at the outset of the inquiry, MI5 initially provided just six lines of text,” the committee said. Had the intelligence agencies conducted a threat assessment before the vote, it added, it was “inconceivable” that they would not have concluded there was a Russian threat.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
Oh, OK, that definitively proves that the outcome of the referendum was due to foreign interference.
My apologies.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum
Plenty on it here. You'll no doubt remember this stuff, as much of it was posted to this thread as it was uncovered. It was hardly going to be investigated by a government invested in a hard brexit with any rigour, was it? And don't say why, you know perfectly well why.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
In other words about 2 COVIDs worth of damage. It's like choosing to have a couple of extra major recessions for, and this hardly needs saying at this point, literally no benefit except in the fevered minds of the weirder Tory MPs.
Reports like this model the factors we know about not the factors we don't. So we add up the known costs and benefits of leaving the EU and work out how they effect the economy and convert this to a GDP delta over some reasonable time frame.
You can of course argue that the report is wrong and it's not really 4% over 10 to 15 years but if you want to do that you have to come up with some actual economic benefits of leaving and all we got so far is "Send Ian Botham to Australia?" and "Be like Singapore?".
The 4% is caused by leaving the EU and you don't get it back no matter how brilliant the chancellor's plan. Unless his brilliant plan was to re-join the EU.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
OK, all points taken. Is it not just easier to say that the reduction in imports/exports and costs to business associated with leaving the SM and CU, and based on the experience of other similar FTAs, as well as that of the past 10 months, runs to a suppression in GDP of around one quarter of a percent annually?
We know this. The calculation was made prior to the referendum, and in the intervening period. It isn't really news at all.
What we must hope, and what is overwhelmingly important and relevant now, is that the policies of this and successive future governments serve to transform this economy from a low value and unproductive one to a high value, productive one. Who knows, future policy may well improve upon the TCA with the EU, or even take us into EFTA and reduce that drag on GDP.
The problem with membership of the SM, as desirable as that may be, is that it is incumbent upon membership of the EU, an overtly political (and, incidentally, growth-suppressive) organisation that a majority of British voters in the 2016 referendum indicated that they didn't want to be part of. That is the situation we have, and the one that we're going to have to learn to live with.
We know this. The calculation was made prior to the referendum, and in the intervening period. It isn't really news at all.
What we must hope, and what is overwhelmingly important and relevant now, is that the policies of this and successive future governments serve to transform this economy from a low value and unproductive one to a high value, productive one. Who knows, future policy may well improve upon the TCA with the EU, or even take us into EFTA and reduce that drag on GDP.
The problem with membership of the SM, as desirable as that may be, is that it is incumbent upon membership of the EU, an overtly political (and, incidentally, growth-suppressive) organisation that a majority of British voters in the 2016 referendum indicated that they didn't want to be part of. That is the situation we have, and the one that we're going to have to learn to live with.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
Yup, and I have indeed read it all before.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
That has the sound of tragically gripping at straws and yes, you ‘will have to learn to live with it’. Good luck for the future.
Last edited:
- Status