Vast Brexit thread merge part III

[35451]

You just restated the same error you made before. This argument is not based on economic forecasts but rather on trade economics. Indeed on the very trade economics that underpins neoliberalism, globalisation, Tatcherism etc. You can tell it's not based on forecasts because there is near unanimity amongst academic economists on this point -- if it were just based on forecasts then most of them would be saying "Who knows?" and the rest all disagreeing with each other.

The easiest way to think of it is like the UK suffering a recession of something like 1.5% to 2.5% over the next few years but instead of recovering from this, this just being the future reduced baseline for all our growth in future years.

Maybe it’s a case of wording. Substitute ‘forward looking/thinking’ to ‘forecasting’ and I am not mistaken.

All the monetarists, Keynesians, academics, and so on are forwards looking based on theory, modelling, and insightful guesswork.
Yes of course the base line for growth/contraction moves.

BoP economists on trade are similarly inflicted with a reality that often fails to match their predictions. They get it wrong at least as often as they get it right, even with constant revisions and adjustments.

 

[Brian]

Such as not being partial to hearing Polish spoken on the bus?

Never come across it. Is that the type of person you mix with?

Ever thought of doing stand up? No? Thank goodness for that.

Failing to engage directly, I see.

It’s a weird idea you have there, but do you or do you not know of people who voted leave because they dislike hearing Polish spoken on the bus?

 

[matthewr]

Maybe it’s a case of wording. Substitute ‘forward looking/thinking’ to ‘forecasting’ and I am not mistaken.

All the monetarists, Keynesians, academics, and so on are forwards looking based on theory, modelling, and insightful guesswork.
Yes of course the base line for growth/contraction moves.

BoP economists on trade are similarly inflicted with a reality that often fails to match their predictions. They get it wrong at least as often as they get it right, even with constant revisions and adjustments.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, you are wrong and fundamentally don't understand what you are talking about. The damage Brexit will do to our economy is *not* based on forecasts but on a quantifiable loss in the amount of trade we will do. If you do not accept this then you do not believe, broadly speaking, in free trade.

Note you can remove this effect by agreeing a future free trade agreement with the EU that is functionally identical to the single market but a) this gets us into the vassal state problem and b) one might reasonably ask why did we waste 10 years of our collective lives on this nonsense?

 

[droodzilla]

Maybe it’s a case of wording. Substitute ‘forward looking/thinking’ to ‘forecasting’ and I am not mistaken.

All the monetarists, Keynesians, academics, and so on are forwards looking based on theory, modelling, and insightful guesswork.
Yes of course the base line for growth/contraction moves.

BoP economists on trade are similarly inflicted with a reality that often fails to match their predictions. They get it wrong at least as often as they get it right, even with constant revisions and adjustments.

The effect of making trade with our biggest and nearest market more difficult is entirely predictable. It is virtually a logical necessity that GDP will fall, and that the effect will be long-term, if not permanent.

Other things being equal.

Of course, other things are never equal and, in the case of Brexit, the UK will try to plug the trade gap by making deals with other countries.

One point of the IFS chart (and many others that show a similar picture) is to quantify the trade gap that would need to be filled post-Brexit. Unfortunately, it's quite a big gap, even in the best case where we strike a deal*. In the event of a chaotic no-deal, it's huge (>4% less than baseline in three years, according to the IFS). It's hard to see how these new deals will ever fill the gap left by leaving the EU, but I'm not aware of any serious attempts to model them.

Bear in mind that for any new trade deals to count as "compensation" for Brexit, they need to be deals we wouldn't have entered into anyway.

So, overall, it's quite clear that leaving the EU will do long-term (think decades) economic damage to the UK. Although remainers tend to exaggerate the magnitude of the effect (talk of economic "meltdown" really doesn't help) they are right about its existence. The question then is what do we gain, apart from a mostly illusory sense of sovereignty?

*For the record, I would have been happy to accept a "soft Brexit" early on - relatively small economic hit + it would have saved us three years of horseshit and the risk of a far-right government determined to pursue an economically ruinous Brexit.

 

[35451]

The inescapable fact, regardless of how many links you dig up in an attempt to support your agenda is that nobody knows how 33,577,342 people voted in the referendum ( for the literal types ) in terms of where they fit in with the conclusions taken from those small samples.

This. The sage point seems wilfully ignored here when ‘facts’.are presented.

When you start looking at folk like ashcrofts methodologies and backgrounds, it’s hardly surprising that his findings are challenged.

It’s partly due to deductive vs inductive thinking by many. Ie research then theory vs theory then research. Qualitative findings deduced fron limited qualitative studies are a minefield of inaccuracy, unless they suit ones own bias and points to make.
It’s called critical thinking. Requires balance and challenge

 

[35451]

The effect of making trade with our biggest and nearest market more difficult is entirely predictable. It is virtually a logical necessity that GDP will fall, and that the effect will be long-term, if not permanent.

Other things being equal.

Of course, other things are never equal and, in the case of Brexit, the UK will try to plug the trade gap by making deals with other countries.

One point of the IFS chart (and many others that show a similar picture) is to quantify the trade gap that would need to be filled post-Brexit. Unfortunately, it's quite a big gap, even in the best case where we strike a deal*. In the event of a chaotic no-deal, it's huge (>4% less than baseline in three years, according to the IFS). It's hard to see how these new deals will ever fill the gap left by leaving the EU, but I'm not aware of any serious attempts to model them.

Bear in mind that for any new trade deals to count as "compensation" for Brexit, they need to be deals we wouldn't have entered into anyway.

So, overall, it's quite clear that leaving the EU will do long-term (think decades) economic damage to the UK. Although remainers tend to exaggerate the magnitude of the effect (talk of economic "meltdown" really doesn't help) they are right about its existence. The question then is what do we gain, apart from a mostly illusory sense of sovereignty?

*For the record, I would have been happy to accept a "soft Brexit" early on - relatively small economic hit + it would have saved us three years of horseshit and the risk of a far-right government determined to pursue an economically ruinous Brexit.

I completely agree with you, bar the gap-filling strategies for trade. I do not have much confidence in the current bunch in parliament, but they won’t be there in the med term, possibly short term!!!

However what is to come accurate or otherwise, will test the country’s fortitude and ability to innovate and be creative. Something needed. I dint just mean tech, I mean deal making, trade bi lateral agreements, new goods and services.

I don’t subscribe to “we need a war”, or anarchy as mechadisn fir change, but a shake up is needed now, even if it wasn’t before Cameron (Ashcroft nemesis btw) screwed it up.
The country feels broken and negative. Seems many here want fauliure just so they can be right. That’s scary.
I’m of the change is scary but now needed and dies not have to be bad socially and economically in the long term.

 

[Colin Barron]

Either you rebuild Macedonia (tiny country, population 2m) and build motorways in Romania et al and sell them Services/Stuff as they prosper.
Or the citizens of those temporarily messed up places come over to the UK (& Germany, France etc) looking for jobs.
To me the first option is Win/Win, the second is Lose/Lose.

Do the handful also rebuild Montenegro, Albania, Serbia and eventually Turkey etc etc.
Bearing in mind Italy is on the brink, France has just taken on 10 billion Euros pa of yellow jacket debt pushing it over the 3% EU spend limit and that assumes we don't have a hard Brexit where everything goes belly up.

 

[wacko]

Do the handful also rebuild Montenegro, Albania, Serbia and eventually Turkey etc etc.
Bearing in mind Italy is on the brink, France has just taken on 10 billion Euros pa of yellow jacket debt pushing it over the 3% EU spend limit and that assumes we don't have a hard Brexit where everything goes belly up.

Turkey will never be in the EU.
Helping less prosperous periphery (mostly small) countries become stable democracies is sound politics/economics.
France and Italy are, and hopefully always will be, two of the best countries in the world to live in.
The UK is not in the Euro zone. One of many advantages the UK is throwing away.
Brexit just makes everything worse and the future more risky.

 

[matthewr]

The effect of making trade with our biggest and nearest market more difficult is entirely predictable. It is virtually a logical necessity that GDP will fall, and that the effect will be long-term, if not permanent.

Other things being equal.

Of course, other things are never equal and, in the case of Brexit, the UK will try to plug the trade gap by making deals with other countries.

One point of the IFS chart (and many others that show a similar picture) is to quantify the trade gap that would need to be filled post-Brexit. Unfortunately, it's quite a big gap, even in the best case where we strike a deal*. In the event of a chaotic no-deal, it's huge (>4% less than baseline in three years, according to the IFS). It's hard to see how these new deals will ever fill the gap left by leaving the EU, but I'm not aware of any serious attempts to model them.

Bear in mind that for any new trade deals to count as "compensation" for Brexit, they need to be deals we wouldn't have entered into anyway.

So, overall, it's quite clear that leaving the EU will do long-term (think decades) economic damage to the UK. Although remainers tend to exaggerate the magnitude of the effect (talk of economic "meltdown" really doesn't help) they are right about its existence. The question then is what do we gain, apart from a mostly illusory sense of sovereignty?

*For the record, I would have been happy to accept a "soft Brexit" early on - relatively small economic hit + it would have saved us three years of horseshit and the risk of a far-right government determined to pursue an economically ruinous Brexit.

I completely agree with you, bar not having the patience or energy to explain it all. Again.

 

[Mullardman]

Righto. 17.4m voted selfishly, everyone else voted without a thought for anything but their neighbour. Makes a change from the thick racist nonsense.

According to you, they didn't vote for economic reasons. They had other (unspecified by you..) 'reasons'. So, if it wasn't xenophobia, misplaced idiotic hankering for a mythical past, or a profound wish to recover a 'sovereignty' we never lost..
WTF was it?

 

[Colin Barron]

While you're at it Colin.. would you like the UK to start re-paying all of the EU money that was spent in re-generation/employment/training/environmental measures, etc., etc.,. in areas of the UK just left to rot by the Tories and scum such as Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Farage and all the other lying entitled bastards?

My understanding of the uk contributions to the EU is they have always been positive and mainly on an upward trend and quite a lot more than we signed up for in the 1970s referendum.
https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+...dAQ9QEwD3oECAYQBg#imgrc=VcWsTrY4UZMfIM:&vet=1

 

[Colin Barron]

According to you, they didn't vote for economic reasons. They had other (unspecified by you..) 'reasons'. So, if it wasn't xenophobia, misplaced idiotic hankering for a mythical past, or a profound wish to recover a 'sovereignty' we never lost..
WTF was it?

Simple answer, Cameron could not sell the benefits of the EU to the country.

 

[Mullardman]

FFS!!! Colin!! How many more times do you have to be told that the trading advantages of being in the EU vastly outweigh any shite you can dredge up about contributions?

 

[Mullardman]

Simple answer, Cameron could not sell the benefits of the EU to the country.

So for you.. they don't exist?

 

[droodzilla]

I completely agree with you, bar not having the patience or energy to explain it all. Again.

Matthew, if it's any consolation, I've learned a lot from your posts about macroeconomics.

 

[farfromthesun]

Failing to engage directly, I see.

It’s a weird idea you have there, but do you or do you not know of people who voted leave because they dislike hearing Polish spoken on the bus?

I know that there are racists who voted for Brexit, who would get into the kind of froth that you're getting into now, if they heard Polish spoken on the bus. I don't know any personally because I don't associate with ****s.

 

[Colin Barron]

FFS!!! Colin!! How many more times do you have to be told that the trading advantages of being in the EU vastly outweigh any shite you can dredge up about contributions?

So why would we need to repay EU (well UK money really) spent in the UK when the graphs show we have always made a positive, and rising over time, contribution?

 

[farfromthesun]

I know that there are racists who voted for Brexit, who would get into the kind of froth that you're getting into now, if they heard Polish spoken on the bus. I don't know any personally because I don't associate with ****s.

State of this. NSFW due to the language. Looks like someone took exception to their bus driver being Polish. It's like something out of a safari park, but without anything good in it.

Again - NSFW due to the language.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/london/watch-ferocious-racist-rant-at-polish-bus-driver-t/

Wonder how that bloke voted? Hmmm, tough one.

 

[thebigfredc]

Big Fred in his England hat and his belligerent arms fold seems an appropriate avatar.

Flippin' heck Colin L.

Can't a man wear an England cricket hat to prevent his bonce from burning these days.
And as for crossed arms, well that has multiple meanings including the individual feeling insecure and subconsciously desiring the comforting embrace of his mother from his childhood. You maybe surprised to know I pride myself on being a bit of a worrier.
It's not like I am dressed in a black shirt, chin jutted out and right arm held high at a forty five degree angle.

Ray

 

[Romulus]

I think it was the Polish Squadron 303 which shot the most enemy aircraft in the Battle of Britain so I have nothing but gratitude for the Poles and have earned their right to live and work in UK.