The economic consequences of Brexit

[combiharvey]

don4l said:

///ajd said:

Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?

So where do you live then?

I am happy to say that I live in Camberley.

It's a nice part of the world without too many immigrants.

I'm the only immigrant who lives in our street.

And your true colours come out

There are some real rockets on this forum

[Northern Munkee]

Murph7355 said:

Northern Munkee said:

Hmmm... I wondered about gold or is it boilerplating civil servants, we do like to do things "properly" and it is as much a curse, then again that's why foreigners like our legal system. It can be trusted...

Try this the govts consultation doc https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...

As to our cousins it's one or two Tory MEPs leading the charge, but presumably the Europeans are trying not to care about anything we say, at the moment...

Don't worry, we have vetos.

I didn't realise motorsports add so much to our bottom line. I wonder what it adds to every other country in the EU.

I also wonder where this legislation originated from.

I never saw any mention of veto power in the DfT docs on the link, I don't think there is a veto on judgments of the ECJ court, I could be wrong you're either in compliance as a country or breach of the court's judgments and subject to fine. To be fair what little I could find suggests the commission are scrambling to find a solution and there is so very little out on the web, one supposes this is what the EU is like on lots of things. No need to panic sort of thing.

But this for me is symptomatic of why we should be out, quite why a tractor reversing into a ladder on (private land) a Slovenian farm should impose, as consequence, of lawyering, a huge burden of insurance and threaten 60000 jobs and £10bn per annum in the U.K (not my words the Dept for Transport). and that's just motorsport there's a bunch of other areas see pic, is a nonsense, this is why our parliament should ultimately be the highest legal authority where British law is made, British common sense and pragmatism and all that. I'm not even sure our own Supreme Court was such a good (Tony Blair) idea.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 22 December 08:20

[combiharvey]

b2hbm said:

Old 3 strokes lives in Lincolnshire, Boston to be exact.

He must do, he professes to know more about it than most locals and was probably one of the 20-odd percent who voted to remain.

I think it's up to that forum member to choose whether his location is published on a public forum, don't you?

[///ajd]

combiharvey said:

don4l said:

///ajd said:

Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?

So where do you live then?

I am happy to say that I live in Camberley.

It's a nice part of the world without too many immigrants.

I'm the only immigrant who lives in our street.

And your true colours come out

There are some real rockets on this forum

Indeed, lives in an area with it seems little or no impact from immigration, yet hurls abuse at the TV if someone with a hijab comes on. Irrational?

He's only doing these things to wind up lefties of course.

PS either joking - or an idiot. You decide.

[walm]

FiF said:

If the consensus was that so far membership had been a good thing then one wonders why this wasn't a major feature of the Remain campaign.

WTF?
It was a major feature of the Remain campaign.
Did you miss the consensus of expert economists?
Or did you simply adhere to the major feature of the Brexit campaign which was "don't bother listening to experts"...

"Nine out of 10 of the country’s top economists working across academia, the City, industry, small businesses and the public sector believe the British economy will be harmed by Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/e...

Also, you obviously have to read either the Guardian or the BBC in order to find the major features of the Remain campaign.

[Northern Munkee]

Well at least I'm not whistling this tune on my own anymore, it's reached the Times. Based on the MCIA press release I posted earlier.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ecd4499e-c7c4-11...

[Sway]

walm said:

FiF said:

If the consensus was that so far membership had been a good thing then one wonders why this wasn't a major feature of the Remain campaign.

WTF?
It was a major feature of the Remain campaign.
Did you miss the consensus of expert economists?
Or did you simply adhere to the major feature of the Brexit campaign which was "don't bother listening to experts"...

"Nine out of 10 of the country’s top economists working across academia, the City, industry, small businesses and the public sector believe the British economy will be harmed by Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/e...

Also, you obviously have to read either the Guardian or the BBC in order to find the major features of the Remain campaign.

That is a very different premise: That extricating ourselves from a multi decade Union will cost. Not that we have benefitted economically during the life of that Union.

The only argument for the second claim during the campaign I remember was the "we get £10 back for every £ in membership fees" a claim much like the big red bus that virtually no one believed and had very little backing it up.

There was the peer reviewed paper by Minford that showed that under FTO rules, the average cost of living would decrease by 7-9%. Primarily because whilst German cars would be 10% more expensive, non-EU imported food would drop substantially, as we would no longer be applying the (FTO rule breaking) protectionist tariffs currently applied... But again, that isn't a holistic review of the cost/benefit analysis for our economy of EU membership.

[andymadmak]

walm said:

FiF said:

If the consensus was that so far membership had been a good thing then one wonders why this wasn't a major feature of the Remain campaign.

WTF?
It was a major feature of the Remain campaign.
Did you miss the consensus of expert economists?
Or did you simply adhere to the major feature of the Brexit campaign which was "don't bother listening to experts"...

"Nine out of 10 of the country’s top economists working across academia, the City, industry, small businesses and the public sector believe the British economy will be harmed by Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/e...

Also, you obviously have to read either the Guardian or the BBC in order to find the major features of the Remain campaign.

There are a few problems with this post. Firstly you claim that membership having been a good thing for the UK was a major part of the Remain campaign. I don't remember the Remain campaign being conducted in that tone. Instead I remember it being conducted in the tone of "if we leave, XYZ bad things will happen to UK". That is hardly the same thing now is it? If you actually think it is, and if you actually think the Remain campaign was positive in it's message then I have to say that you and i witnessed different campaigns!
In the final analysis, if someone or some group wishes to communicate a very important message it is incumbent on the deliverer of the message, not the receiver of the message to ensure that the message is communicated effectively and understood comprehensively. It is clear (from a Remain standpoint) that Remain failed in this regard. The fault therefore lies with the Remain side, not with Brexit.

Also, on the Remain side, much effort was put into the personal abuse directed towards those in the Brexit camp. Hardly surprising then that the more nuanced elements of the Remain message that may have been present would have been ignored! You do know that sneering comments about closet racists, bigotry, xenophobia, low intelligence, old age etc etc tends to make people switch off from your other core messages?

You lose further credibility points by deliberately misquoting the Gove "experts" point. Taken in context it made sense. Taken the way you have chosen to use it here shows a level of mendacity (or incomprehension) on your part.

I could take a cheap shot and make some snide comments about economics experts and such like, but I won't. Instead I will point out that hardly anyone said that there would be no pain from a Brexit vote. That there would be adverse economic consequences in the short to medium was never in doubt. The expectation is that longer terms these consequences will have been mitigated. Also, it was never only about the money.

Many of us don't read the Guardian and many of us have struggled with what is obviously a pro Remain bias from a state funded broadcaster that supposedly has a duty of impartiality but which fails to adhere to it.
Keep in mind that your beloved Guardian is a paper that brings you guff like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/adam...
It's also the paper that published one of the most disgusting pieces of journalism I have ever read in the aftermath of the awful murder of Jo Cox. It was bad enough that Toynbee wrote it. It's appalling that the editor published the copy rather than wipe his arse with it.

[powerstroke]

Northern Munkee said:

Well at least I'm not whistling this tune on my own anymore, it's reached the Times. Based on the MCIA press release I posted earlier.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ecd4499e-c7c4-11...

Thanks for posting about this , its very worrying that despite the vote to leave the EU the pen pushers are going full steam ahead with a gold plated consutation instead of just saying we will be out of the swamp in the next year or so ,fk it lets do someing useful instead like planing for new roads and mending the existing ones!!!! ...

[alfie2244]

don'tbesilly said:

///ajd said:

Murph7355 said:

....Why did the EU feel the need to "destroy" the JAA? Or persist with an alternative to the FAA?

These, to me, are equally reasonable questions. I strongly suspect that the reasons are underpinned by the EU's desire to be a state in its own right. It's about control. I've found nothing/very little to dissuade me from that view.....

Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?

Why do you say I'm joking when you know I'm not?

Nor I.

[walm]

Sway said:

That is a very different premise: That extricating ourselves from a multi decade Union will cost. Not that we have benefitted economically during the life of that Union.

(And to andy-whatsit)
Yes - sorry, I mis-read FiF's comment.

He's right. The historical consensus that it has been a good thing in the past was NOT a major part of the campaign.

Although I don't wonder why it wasn't.
Whether or not it was a good thing in the past isn't particularly relevant to whether it might be good in the future, no?

Either way, my point still stands which is despite what Murph and FiF think their own expertise in economics tells them - the consensus was that it was good.

Oh and for anyone wondering about what level of "expertise" they might have.
Murph things trade with the EU has been "declining for years" despite the fact that it is up nearly £50bn per annum over the last decade or so.
Oh and of course "simple" trading with the EU comes at a price - otherwise there is no debate!!!
(And it's 44% of total exports - that is effing ENORMOUS, isn't it??)

[paulrockliffe]

andymadmak said:

walm said:

FiF said:

If the consensus was that so far membership had been a good thing then one wonders why this wasn't a major feature of the Remain campaign.

WTF?
It was a major feature of the Remain campaign.
Did you miss the consensus of expert economists?
Or did you simply adhere to the major feature of the Brexit campaign which was "don't bother listening to experts"...

"Nine out of 10 of the country’s top economists working across academia, the City, industry, small businesses and the public sector believe the British economy will be harmed by Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/e...

Also, you obviously have to read either the Guardian or the BBC in order to find the major features of the Remain campaign.

There are a few problems with this post. Firstly you claim that membership having been a good thing for the UK was a major part of the Remain campaign. I don't remember the Remain campaign being conducted in that tone. Instead I remember it being conducted in the tone of "if we leave, XYZ bad things will happen to UK". That is hardly the same thing now is it? If you actually think it is, and if you actually think the Remain campaign was positive in it's message then I have to say that you and i witnessed different campaigns!
In the final analysis, if someone or some group wishes to communicate a very important message it is incumbent on the deliverer of the message, not the receiver of the message to ensure that the message is communicated effectively and understood comprehensively. It is clear (from a Remain standpoint) that Remain failed in this regard. The fault therefore lies with the Remain side, not with Brexit.

Also, on the Remain side, much effort was put into the personal abuse directed towards those in the Brexit camp. Hardly surprising then that the more nuanced elements of the Remain message that may have been present would have been ignored! You do know that sneering comments about closet racists, bigotry, xenophobia, low intelligence, old age etc etc tends to make people switch off from your other core messages?

You lose further credibility points by deliberately misquoting the Gove "experts" point. Taken in context it made sense. Taken the way you have chosen to use it here shows a level of mendacity (or incomprehension) on your part.

I could take a cheap shot and make some snide comments about economics experts and such like, but I won't. Instead I will point out that hardly anyone said that there would be no pain from a Brexit vote. That there would be adverse economic consequences in the short to medium was never in doubt. The expectation is that longer terms these consequences will have been mitigated. Also, it was never only about the money.

Many of us don't read the Guardian and many of us have struggled with what is obviously a pro Remain bias from a state funded broadcaster that supposedly has a duty of impartiality but which fails to adhere to it.
Keep in mind that your beloved Guardian is a paper that brings you guff like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/adam...
It's also the paper that published one of the most disgusting pieces of journalism I have ever read in the aftermath of the awful murder of Jo Cox. It was bad enough that Toynbee wrote it. It's appalling that the editor published the copy rather than wipe his arse with it.

+1

[///ajd]

walm said:

Sway said:

That is a very different premise: That extricating ourselves from a multi decade Union will cost. Not that we have benefitted economically during the life of that Union.

(And to andy-whatsit)
Yes - sorry, I mis-read FiF's comment.

He's right. The historical consensus that it has been a good thing in the past was NOT a major part of the campaign.

Although I don't wonder why it wasn't.
Whether or not it was a good thing in the past isn't particularly relevant to whether it might be good in the future, no?

Either way, my point still stands which is despite what Murph and FiF think their own expertise in economics tells them - the consensus was that it was good.

Oh and for anyone wondering about what level of "expertise" they might have.
Murph things trade with the EU has been "declining for years" despite the fact that it is up nearly £50bn per annum over the last decade or so.
Oh and of course "simple" trading with the EU comes at a price - otherwise there is no debate!!!
(And it's 44% of total exports - that is effing ENORMOUS, isn't it??)

They did make a bit of a thing about £10 back for every £ spent, but when it was discussed here it was obvious it was not understood by those who just blurted out the bus lies as a counterargument. Pan pan pan - when he was not banging on about immigration - was like a stuck record about how "we pay more into the EU". None of the more subtle arguments about the positive effect the SM has had on GDP regsitered - and how these dwarf the red bus lie figures. It was obvious some posters just didn't understand the argument, or decided to believe some nonsense from Farage et al that poo poo'd it.

[paulrockliffe]

///ajd said:

They did make a bit of a thing about £10 back for every £ spent, but when it was discussed here it was obvious it was not understood by those who just blurted out the bus lies as a counterargument. Pan pan pan - when he was not banging on about immigration - was like a stuck record about how "we pay more into the EU". None of the more subtle arguments about the positive effect the SM has had on GDP regsitered - and how these dwarf the red bus lie figures. It was obvious some posters just didn't understand the argument, or decided to believe some nonsense from Farage et al that poo poo'd it.

Actually it was dismissed because the evidence supplied with the claim was bks. Maybe you'd like to continue your crusade to educate all the thick racists and explain what was misunderstood the first time round?

[Sway]

walm said:

Sway said:

That is a very different premise: That extricating ourselves from a multi decade Union will cost. Not that we have benefitted economically during the life of that Union.

(And to andy-whatsit)
Yes - sorry, I mis-read FiF's comment.

He's right. The historical consensus that it has been a good thing in the past was NOT a major part of the campaign.

Although I don't wonder why it wasn't.
Whether or not it was a good thing in the past isn't particularly relevant to whether it might be good in the future, no?

Either way, my point still stands which is despite what Murph and FiF think their own expertise in economics tells them - the consensus was that it was good.

Oh and for anyone wondering about what level of "expertise" they might have.
Murph things trade with the EU has been "declining for years" despite the fact that it is up nearly £50bn per annum over the last decade or so.
Oh and of course "simple" trading with the EU comes at a price - otherwise there is no debate!!!
(And it's 44% of total exports - that is effing ENORMOUS, isn't it??)

I'm really not certain that past performance would be irrelevant. If it was shown that there had been a clear economic benefit outweighing the loss of sovereignty then that would have influenced my decision. Not sure if it would have changed things, but it would have been considered.

Of course, the absence of any meaningful analysis and instead relying on argument by consensus with little rationale or supporting data is for me quite telling.

As for the percentage of exports - don't forget that the 'Rotterdam Effect' has a significant impact... True exports to the Single Market are lower than that 44%, which in and of itself is a small percentage of overall economic production within the UK. Not irrelevant, but it must be asked - if the SM is such a differentiator for trade, how come it doesn't even make up the majority of our exports? Especially when the biggest RoW export markets are typically under WTO MFN or worse tariff regimes?

[///ajd]

paulrockliffe said:

///ajd said:

They did make a bit of a thing about £10 back for every £ spent, but when it was discussed here it was obvious it was not understood by those who just blurted out the bus lies as a counterargument. Pan pan pan - when he was not banging on about immigration - was like a stuck record about how "we pay more into the EU". None of the more subtle arguments about the positive effect the SM has had on GDP regsitered - and how these dwarf the red bus lie figures. It was obvious some posters just didn't understand the argument, or decided to believe some nonsense from Farage et al that poo poo'd it.

Actually it was dismissed because the evidence supplied with the claim was bks. Maybe you'd like to continue your crusade to educate all the thick racists and explain what was misunderstood the first time round?

The evidence was what it was. It was dismissed as it was not what some wanted to hear.

Look at the graph above about EU trade is tailing off. Lies eagerly lapped up.

The Uk started the Single Market for good reasons - if you don't understand those, and it seems you don't, thats part of the problem.

It is obvious also you won't even listen to a logical argument from 'slasher from France', so I'd suggest you try and learn about why the Single Market is a good thing on your own. The express or daily mail probably won't help as reference material.

[SKP555]

walm said:

WTF?
It was a major feature of the Remain campaign.
Did you miss the consensus of expert economists?
Or did you simply adhere to the major feature of the Brexit campaign which was "don't bother listening to experts"...

"Nine out of 10 of the country’s top economists working across academia, the City, industry, small businesses and the public sector believe the British economy will be harmed by Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/e...

Also, you obviously have to read either the Guardian or the BBC in order to find the major features of the Remain campaign.

Or people read a bit past the headlines...

"economists working across academia, the City, industry, small businesses and the public sector"

So the guy who analyses maize futures and the health economist for the NHS are experts in this too?

"A poll commissioned for the Observer"

I see

"600 economists, found 88% saying an exit from the EU and the single market would most likely damage Britain’s growth prospects over the next five years."

EU and single market, which as we can now see is not a given, will most likely damage growth prospects over the next 5 years. Hardly overwhelming rejection of the entire notion of leaving the political union.

"Those surveyed were members of the profession’s most respected representative bodies, the Royal Economic Society and the Society of Business Economists, and all who replied did so voluntarily."

Respected by who?

Good that they did so voluntarily. I'm glad Ipsos MORI don't get responses at gun point. The downside is that presumably quite a number didn't respond at all, so 88% of those who chose to respond responded that way. Good or bad there are a lot more than 600 economists.

"Paul Johnson, director of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the findings, from a survey unprecedented in its scale, showed an extraordinary level of unity."

Indeed it does. Which makes me suspect that either the respondents were more carefully selected or that the questions were rather more narrow than we're led to believe by the Guardian.

And so on.

The expert claim was so easily dismissed not because people have a cavalier disregard for what people with knowledge and experience thought or because people ignored detailed academic studies in a jingoistic fervour. It was ignored because it was a transparent attempt to scare the public into voting a certain way on a very weak basis.


Even the Guardian has this caveat under the article

"In total, 639 respondents completed an online survey, sent to non-student members of the Royal Economic Society and the Society of Business Economists, between 19 and 27 May 2016: a response rate of 17%. Data is unweighted and reported figures should only be taken as representative of the views of those who responded"

[walm]

Sway said:

I'm really not certain that past performance would be irrelevant. If it was shown that there had been a clear economic benefit outweighing the loss of sovereignty then that would have influenced my decision. Not sure if it would have changed things, but it would have been considered.

Of course, the absence of any meaningful analysis and instead relying on argument by consensus with little rationale or supporting data is for me quite telling.

As for the percentage of exports - don't forget that the 'Rotterdam Effect' has a significant impact... True exports to the Single Market are lower than that 44%, which in and of itself is a small percentage of overall economic production within the UK. Not irrelevant, but it must be asked - if the SM is such a differentiator for trade, how come it doesn't even make up the majority of our exports? Especially when the biggest RoW export markets are typically under WTO MFN or worse tariff regimes?

For obvious reasons you can't put a price on sovereignty so you are asking the impossible.

Do you understand what "consensus" means??
They didn't just take a vote in the pub.

OBVIOUSLY the economists used rationale and supporting data. What the hell else do you think they did?

It is this kind of ignorance that seems telling to me!!!

As for why the EU isn't the majority of our exports - what on earth?

Since when is "it must be the majority" the way you decide whether you ignore something or not!!!
"not irrelevant" - EXACTLY.
It's 44% - if it were 51% somehow your opinion would flip-flop?

Come on Sway - you aren't making any sense!
(Although the Rotterdam effect is fair, I was ignoring that for sure.)

1. There was huge amounts of evidence, supporting data and rationale.
2. Loss of sovereignty isn't something you can independently value - it's highly personal.
3. Of course at some point exports to the EU might be small enough to ignore. I strongly feel we are not at that point. Certainly there is no requirement for it to be the majority.

[walm]

SKP555 said:

The expert claim was so easily dismissed not because people have a cavalier disregard for what people with knowledge and experience thought or because people ignored detailed academic studies in a jingoistic fervour. It was ignored because it was a transparent attempt to scare the public into voting a certain way on a very weak basis.

The expert claim wasn't easily dismissed.
88% is an incredibly strong endorsement.

But sure, because it was commissioned by the Observer we should ignore it.

If it was "very weak", where is your evidence it's wrong?
Oh that's right, we should just do a gut-check. We've had enough of experts. Why rely on rational argument and evidence when we can just look into our heart-of-hearts and find the truth?

You know what that's called?... "post-truth". And I completely despair at that.

[Sway]

I wasn't suggesting that they weigh up the price of sovereignty in the equation. Merely that if a clear, data supported, rationale for a figure or positive economic benefit then I would have made the comparison in my own opinion making.

As for the percentage of exports, I was merely suggesting that if the theory that the SM is of such benefit, then that benefit would manifest itself through increased exports to that market. As it is, the current volume and value of exports to the SM is lower than when we joined, and the long term trend is in one direction. That would strongly suggest that SM membership is not the competitive discriminator it's suggested to be.

It's not been suggested often that I'm a raving Brexiteer unwilling to concede any positive benefit of membership of the EU. I've always engaged with these debates with the view that there has been good and bad, but on balance and using the data I've been able to find or review that for me the benefits aren't worth it. I'm always happy to have my thinking challenged, but I will apply Occam's Razor to assertions with little verifiable data.

Speaking of which, no further rational from AJD about quite why he believes EASA has contributed to Airbus' commercial fortunes, merely obvious rhetoric that they've harmonised regs, something no one has disagreed with, but is clearly a global phenomenon which comes as no surprise when thinking of an industry that by definition crosses borders...