The economic consequences of Brexit

[jjlynn27]

walm said:

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.

'Rotterdam effect' isn't fair. It accounts for less than 4%. Then again, you are talking to Sway, who can slash NHS budget by '30 to 50%' without any adverse affect on services.

[Sway]

walm said:

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.

Assertions and positions made without the underlying data and rationale are the exact opposite of reliable - such is the basis of the scientific method which has stood humanity in good stead for centuries, and seems to be being disregarded in the 'populist' era.

I'm not looking for my gut feel, I'm asking for the basis of the argument to be presented to see if it holds water.

[SKP555]

walm said:

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.

You're sort of arguing against yourself here. This was not a rigorous study showing negative consequences of Brexit which was cast aside by populism. It was an online poll with a 17% response rate and some apparently leading and narrow questions designed to yield a specific result (hence my comment about the Observer).

[walm]

Sway said:

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.

Your thinking is still asking the impossible.
The SM is lower because emerging markets and the US are growing faster than the EU (rather obviously).

The evidence that the SM is a benefit is as you say "increased exports to that market".
In numbers that would mean 44% rather than say 30% or 20% or 40%.
That's what "increased" means.
I'll try to put it simpler - it means bigger than if it weren't there.
It IS there and it's 44%.
So the hypothesis is that without it, that 44% would be lower.
The number 50% has no relevance.

Furthermore, you are just posting factual inaccuracies.
The volume and value of exports to the single market is enormously higher than when we joined.

And lastly, the fact that the EU is growing slower than non-EU doesn't tell us anything at all about competitive discrimination.
It tells us that two regions are growing at different rates. That's it.

Well, it also tells us that over time we can worry less and less about losing SM access but for now 44% is still a BIG DEAL!!

[ATG]

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.

Don't like what's being said, so label it a conspiracy. No need to counter arguments, no need to question your own gut instincts. Lazy intellectual nihilism. fking pathetic.

[SKP555]

ATG said:

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.

Don't like what's being said, so label it a conspiracy. No need to counter arguments, no need to question your own gut instincts. Lazy intellectual nihilism. fking pathetic.

What arguments?

The only argument is that a majority of members of the RES who responded to an online poll held answered that poll in a certain way.

I might as well phone 20 members of the Institute of Mechanical Engineering and ask them if a knocking from the engine means my big ends are shot. Would you take the answer as gospel opinion? Even if 16 of them declined to offer an opinion?


It's not expert opinion, it's a vgue invocation of credentials for political campaigning.

[SKP555]

And it isn't a conspiracy either. It's normal politics. Has some effect sometimes. Didn't have enough this time.

[chris watton]

I thought the remoaners lost the arguments, and this is why they lost the vote!

[SKP555]

chris watton said:

I thought the remoaners lost the arguments, and this is why they lost the vote!

Keep up. Despite much of big business, academia, state television and all the major political parties supporting the better funded remain campaign, the poor fellows were drowned out by a populist mob of old uneducated bigots waving pitchforks and disregarding expert opinion as sorcery because we're too thick to understand it.

It was great!

[AC43]

Sway said:

I'm not looking for my gut feel, I'm asking for the basis of the argument to be presented to see if it holds water.

No need for any data, happily. The stock responses are as follows.

"You're a remoaner"
"You're a bed wetter"
"You are virtue signalling"
"You're part of the liberal urban elite"
"You need to widen your circles"
"it's a conspiracy"
"Brexit means Brexit"

Brexit bingo!

[walm]

SKP555 said:

It's not expert opinion, it's a vague invocation of credentials for political campaigning.

Beggars belief that you appear to genuinely believe this of 639 economists with 88% consensus.

It couldn't be further from your terrible analogy of 4 engineers diagnosing an engine over the phone.
That analogy epitomises why us Remoaners find the denial of the Brexiteers so frustrating.


"We want experts..."
"Here's some."
"They aren't experts... 4 isn't enough and... because engines. And they are policital... somehow... definitely political."

[andymadmak]

AC43 said:

No need for any data, happily. The stock responses are as follows.

"You're a remoaner"
"You're a bed wetter"
"You are virtue signalling"
"You're part of the liberal urban elite"
"You need to widen your circles"
"it's a conspiracy"
"Brexit means Brexit"

Brexit bingo!

that's a bit rich coming from a Remainer. I didn't see you chastising your fellow Remainers for the vitriol that was heaped upon Brexit voters in the run up to and the months following the vote.

[Murph7355]

walm said:

...
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'll be clear as it's a valid comment... The %age of our exports to the EU has been declining for years is what I meant. (I think you knew )

Yes, 44% is a lot. But that is spread across 27 nations. The terms of trading across them are harmonised but that does not mean that they do or do not buy as a unit. At least not yet. The actual purchase of goods is the important thing.

Remember too that exports make up just 30-35% of our GDP. (I see that as unhealthy personally, but it is what it is. And it is important to the debate).

The declining nature of the exports %age and the state of the economies in those 27 nations are very important to the overall debate about our future trade IMO. I also think historic positions are important too. History has much to teach. If something has been great for 40yrs,there's little reason to guess it won't be moving forwards.

And ref experts, the science of economics is not exact. It involves guesswork, educated or otherwise. I prefer to look at what underpins an opinion rather than simply be spoon-fed, no matter how many or how few hold that same opinion (think emperor's new clothes). I also want to see some evidential track record on people's guesswork.

Looking at Crafts' paper as an example, I remain unconvinced per my post on it. It looked like a paper trying to fit numbers to a predefined hypothesis to me, rather than letting numbers tell us something. I'm still agnostic believe it or not, but erring to atheist. Nothing has yet convinced me that the economic argument isn't a zero sum game.

[andymadmak]

walm said:

Beggars belief that you appear to genuinely believe this of 639 economists with 88% consensus.

It couldn't be further from your terrible analogy of 4 engineers diagnosing an engine over the phone.
That analogy epitomises why us Remoaners find the denial of the Brexiteers so frustrating.


"We want experts..."
"Here's some."
"They aren't experts... 4 isn't enough and... because engines. And they are policital... somehow... definitely political."

only 17% responded - what was the opinion of the 83%? why did the 83% not respond? Could it be because they thought the questions asked were leading or not worth answering? Were the 17% more motivated to answer? If so, why were the 83% less motivated to answer?
Stats are useless unless set in proper context. Surveys are worse than useless unless properly conducted and controlled. Your desperate clinging to an already discredited result does you no favours

[Murph7355]

walm said:

Beggars belief that you appear to genuinely believe this of 639 economists with 88% consensus....

As the pedant cap fits, the response rate on that survey was just 17% and the data was unweighted. That means that it ONLY indicates what the 639 respondees felt.

It does not in any way speak to the 3,179 experts that did not respond.

Which is potentially very, very significant.

[sidicks]

walm said:

Beggars belief that you appear to genuinely believe this of 639 economists with 88% consensus.

Given that the experts were 'self-selected' and you don't know what questions were asked, I'm not sure why you are placing so much weight on the results of the survey?

[paulrockliffe]

///ajd said:

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.

What was the evidence? I don't remember there being any evidence to dismiss.

How can you conclude that I won't listen to a logical argument, when none has ever been put?

I don't know who slasher from France is. I don't read the Sun, the Mirror, the Express or the Mail.

You are arguing for a position without providing any evidence to support your argument, now you are telling me to go and find your evidence for you when I have no interest in proving your argument. My position is that if there was an argument to be made it would have been made by now. If you disagree with that it's for you to explain what that argument is and why it hasn't been made.

That you can't do that is sufficient evidence for me to be confident that my position is correct and that yours is not.

If you want to challenge my conclusion, the ball is in your court. I'm happy to listen to your point of view if it is supported by evidence.

[AC43]

andymadmak said:

AC43 said:

No need for any data, happily. The stock responses are as follows.

"You're a remoaner"
"You're a bed wetter"
"You are virtue signalling"
"You're part of the liberal urban elite"
"You need to widen your circles"
"it's a conspiracy"
"Brexit means Brexit"

Brexit bingo!

that's a bit rich coming from a Remainer. I didn't see you chastising your fellow Remainers for the vitriol that was heaped upon Brexit voters in the run up to and the months following the vote.

Well there are some posters on here who support Brexit and who talk about the complexities and nuances in a well thought through manner with supporting evidence. I enjoy reading those posts as they challenge my assumptions and make me think.

But there's also an awful lot of "bed wetting" type comments which don't.

I can't speak for any vitriol spouted by Remainers - I wasn't involved in any of that as i was too busy looking for numbers to back up one side or the other.

It was ugly, though, just as the US presidential election was. Gutter politics all round.

EDIT FWIW i think there are a few Brexit arguments that do stack up;

The Euro disaster
In my view the Euro is the single largest policy disaster in the EU by some margin. I can only see it ending in a massive financial fall out and if we were in the EU I'm sure the other countries would be demanding that we bail it out when it finally implodes.

Pubic Sector Pensions in other EU countries
Some of the other EU countries seem to have created massive future liabilities which, again, may result in a significant bailout. Again it wouldn't be fair to punish British tax payers by making them fund this

General unwinding of debt
In isolation the UK has astronomical levels of debt. There is credible economic argument to say that we could unwind it more effectively if independent

Subsidised construction labour
I finally met someone at a party on Saturday who supports Brexit! He's an abseiler who specialises installing glass into high buildings in London. He pointed out that a lot of his Romanian and Bulgarian mates are working in London on local contracts - ie being paid Romanian and Bulgarian rates - and this of course makes it extremely hard for a Brit to compete. I wasn't aware that this was a common practice on large construction projects but obviously it is.

I'm in no way saying that I think Brexit is a good idea overall - these are just the pieces of silver lining I can see in what, to me, is a massive cloud.

Edited by AC43 on Thursday 22 December 11:46

[Sway]

AC43 said:

Sway said:

I'm not looking for my gut feel, I'm asking for the basis of the argument to be presented to see if it holds water.

No need for any data, happily. The stock responses are as follows.

"You're a remoaner"
"You're a bed wetter"
"You are virtue signalling"
"You're part of the liberal urban elite"
"You need to widen your circles"
"it's a conspiracy"
"Brexit means Brexit"

Brexit bingo!

£100 to the charity of your choice if you can find a single instance where I have typed any of those quoted phrases.

[walm]

Murph7355 said:

I'll be clear as it's a valid comment... The %age of our exports to the EU has been declining for years is what I meant. (I think you knew )

Total did know!