The economic consequences of Brexit

[Murph7355]

walm said:

Total did know!

Arse

[AC43]

Sway said:

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.

LOL - I didn't say you had said them. But I've had most of them and have seen the rest aimed at other people. I wasn't having a pop at people's view, just the rather simplistic retorts that some people employ to try to get their point across.

[Sway]

AC43 said:

Sway said:

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.

LOL - I didn't say you had said them. But I've had most of them and have seen the rest aimed at other people. I wasn't having a pop at people's view, just the rather simplistic retorts that some people employ to try to get their point across.

Then why quote me when I'm asking for something that has been the core of enabling debate and analysis for centuries?

I've also (several times) criticised those using similar phrases.

You have a point, but not in relation to my posting or arguments.

[walm]

To all of you questioning the validity of the survey...

There were 639 effectively randomly selected expert economists giving their opinion.
That's relevant.

Feel free to post other surveys of economists which give the opposite conclusion - I didn't see any.

These are presumably busy people.
To suggest that there was some bias in those that did respond vs. those that didn't is absurd.

In fact, I would suggest that perhaps a significant number didn't respond because they didn't consider themselves expert enough on the topic.

Would have there been a bias pro or anti EU - why??

Occam's Razor strongly points to the simple answer here which is that some conspiracy that everyone who answered (well 88%) is lying in order to make a political argument is clearly absurd.

If there is a better more comprehensive survey then I would love to see it.
But ignoring it seems an ENTIRELY political decision to me.

I was close to being on the fence with Brexit.
This survey seemed as close to unbiased expert evidence as you could wish for.

Here's the detail on it:
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...

[andymadmak]

walm said:

To all of you questioning the validity of the survey...

There were 639 effectively randomly selected expert economists giving their opinion.
That's relevant.

Feel free to post other surveys of economists which give the opposite conclusion - I didn't see any.

These are presumably busy people.
To suggest that there was some bias in those that did respond vs. those that didn't is absurd.

In fact, I would suggest that perhaps a significant number didn't respond because they didn't consider themselves expert enough on the topic.

Would have there been a bias pro or anti EU - why??

Occam's Razor strongly points to the simple answer here which is that some conspiracy that everyone who answered (well 88%) is lying in order to make a political argument is clearly absurd.

If there is a better more comprehensive survey then I would love to see it.
But ignoring it seems an ENTIRELY political decision to me.

I was close to being on the fence with Brexit.
This survey seemed as close to unbiased expert evidence as you could wish for.

Here's the detail on it:
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...

639 respondents completed the online survey between 19th to 27th May 2016. The survey was undertaken online with invitations sent out to non-student members of the Royal Economic Society (RES) and the Society of Business Economists (SBE). Reported figures are based on unweighted data and so should only be taken as representative of those who responded. Overall 3,818 invitations were sent out, with a response rate of approximately 17%. For questions where respondents were asked to provide reasons for their answers, respondents were presented with a pre-defined prompt list.

If you cannot see the flaws then I cannot help you

[don4l]

walm said:

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!!

There are two big problems with that statement.

One.
We are not going to lose access to the single market.

Two.
The "44%" figure is last year's figure. This has been falling for the past two decades. The true figure is more likely to be 42%.

[mapmaker]

Definition of democracy = 49% of the people are not happy.

Edited by mapmaker on Thursday 22 December 12:06

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

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?

Just because you're ignorant of the questions doesn't mean that everyone else is!

The grasping at straws seems to be coming from leavers wanting to believe the survey wasn't credible.

[chris watton]

I wonder if there'll be as much enthusiasm for the EU dream a few on here are so in thrall with if, in a couple of years time, the EU political landscape changes from liberal to 'far right' in many of the main EU countries. If this does happen (God forbid), who is to blame?

It seems that the arguments for more EU hinges on the assumption that it's never going to change from as it is right here, right now. I am a little more pessimistic regarding the future of the EU experiment..

[walm]

andymadmak said:

639 respondents completed the online survey between 19th to 27th May 2016. The survey was undertaken online with invitations sent out to non-student members of the Royal Economic Society (RES) and the Society of Business Economists (SBE). Reported figures are based on unweighted data and so should only be taken as representative of those who responded. Overall 3,818 invitations were sent out, with a response rate of approximately 17%. For questions where respondents were asked to provide reasons for their answers, respondents were presented with a pre-defined prompt list.

If you cannot see the flaws then I cannot help you

Do you understand how surveys work??

How would you like them to weigh the data?? By gender? By age? By some other demographic?

Seriously - what weighting should have been applied?
This isn't supposed to be representative of the UK!!!

As for the prompts - that wasn't for the part of the survey I was interested in.

I wanted experts to tell me how GDP might be impacted - and 88% of 639 said it would be negative.

Obviously such a crazy reading of this "flawed" survey puts me beyond help.


Where is your alternative survey?

[walm]

chris watton said:

It seems that the arguments for more EU hinges on the assumption that it's never going to change from as it is right here, right now. I am a little more pessimistic regarding the future of the EU experiment..

IMHO that is a far more valid reason to worry about EU membership than suggesting that 639 economists isn't a big enough sample size and that prompts on an irrelevant question make a survey flawed!

[anonymous-user]

andymadmak said:

639 respondents completed the online survey between 19th to 27th May 2016. The survey was undertaken online with invitations sent out to non-student members of the Royal Economic Society (RES) and the Society of Business Economists (SBE). Reported figures are based on unweighted data and so should only be taken as representative of those who responded. Overall 3,818 invitations were sent out, with a response rate of approximately 17%. For questions where respondents were asked to provide reasons for their answers, respondents were presented with a pre-defined prompt list.

If you cannot see the flaws then I cannot help you

Reference your highlights.

The figures are only representative of those who responded. How is this a problem?

What is wrong with the prompt list? I infer that you mean it was biased and affected the result. If that is what you are implying then can you demonstrate this?

[don4l]

andymadmak said:

639 respondents completed the online survey between 19th to 27th May 2016. The survey was undertaken online with invitations sent out to non-student members of the Royal Economic Society (RES) and the Society of Business Economists (SBE). Reported figures are based on unweighted data and so should only be taken as representative of those who responded. Overall 3,818 invitations were sent out, with a response rate of approximately 17%. For questions where respondents were asked to provide reasons for their answers, respondents were presented with a pre-defined prompt list.

If you cannot see the flaws then I cannot help you

The biggest flaw is thhat "experts" have been wrong about everything throughout history. Some people are gullible enough to believe that the current generation of "experts" are the first ones to get their predictions right.

This is despite the fact that these are the same "experts" who predicted an "immediate and profound shock to the economy" if we voted Leave.

They have already been proven to be idiots.

I'd recommend this book to anyone who thins that the opinions of experts are relevant.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Future-Babble-Expert-Pred...

[walm]

don4l said:

walm said:

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!!

There are two big problems with that statement.

One.
We are not going to lose access to the single market.

Two.
The "44%" figure is last year's figure. This has been falling for the past two decades. The true figure is more likely to be 42%.

Brexit means Brexit don - surprised I have to tell you that. No negotiation necessary. Remember?

Oh it's only 42% now!!!
Well let's just forget about it then. Who cares about 42% of the exports. We can ignore them, right?

Brexit or Remoan - I am more frustrated by the level of debate on here than anything else to be honest.

42 not 44 is a "big" problem with my statement... are you a child?

[andymadmak]

walm said:

Do you understand how surveys work??

How would you like them to weigh the data?? By gender? By age? By some other demographic?

Seriously - what weighting should have been applied?
This isn't supposed to be representative of the UK!!!

As for the prompts - that wasn't for the part of the survey I was interested in.

I wanted experts to tell me how GDP might be impacted - and 88% of 639 said it would be negative.

Obviously such a crazy reading of this "flawed" survey puts me beyond help.


Where is your alternative survey?

Yes I do know how surveys work. I have conducted a few of them myself in years gone by.

Things that make me slightly nervous about this survey:

1. The low response rate. The survey was not of the general public, where a response rate of 17% might even be considered quite high! Instead it was from a targeted body of experts. 17% seems low in this regard. In other polls I have been involved in where a specific body of people are approached by a reputable polling firm I would have expected to see a response rate at around 50%. (assuming the contacts list was accurate)

2. This leads me to question the nature of the questions posed and the contents of the "pre defined prompt list" If either of those elements deterred responses from Economists with "other views" then this would be reflected in the results. Simply put, we don't know what was posed or prompted, we do not know whether there was a deterrence factor, so we cannot weight the answers.

3. There are some inconsistencies. For example 50% of respondents felt that employment levels would be either largely unaffected, or would be positively affected (reduced) by Brexit. Without the context of the questions posed it is hard to square this response with what is being pushed as the message of the survey.

All in all, you want me to accept the survey as evidence, primarily because it (at least in part) matches your viewpoint. That is fair enough from you, but there are enough questions surrounding the survey to make me want to treat it with some caution. Of course it MAY be right, but it may very well not be.

[B'stard Child]

AC43 said:

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 agree too - an attempt was made to tear the threads kicking and screaming out of the gutter but did not reach a significant level of support.

AC43 said:

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.

Fully agree - absolutely shocking campaign from both sides

AC43 said:

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.

Well it nice to see people still looking objectively at some of the drivers for the vote to leave rather than the more unhelpful labels

"You're a Racist"
"You're a Bigot"
"You are Stupid"
"You're part of the right wing xenophobic UKIP/BNP/HY movement"

[PurpleMoonlight]

don4l said:

walm said:

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!!

We are not going to lose access to the single market.

Access to the single market is a misleading term.

We will either pay to be a member of the single market, or we will trade with members of the EU on WTO or such other agreed terms.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Thursday 22 December 13:26

[///ajd]

paulrockliffe said:

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.

If you can't even use google to find the evidence behind the £10 - £1 claim, then I don't rate your chances of understanding the explanation.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it wrong.

For the same reasons I don't have to justify why EASA was and is a good idea. It is obvious. Intelligent people created it for sound reasons, not as some sort of EU oppressive state take over bid. And yet that is exactly what someone above accused it of being.

Post truth madness.

[andymadmak]

///ajd said:

I don't have to justify why EASA was and is a good idea. It is obvious.

Lots of things are obvious to lots of people. It's why most people ignore you.

[don'tbesilly]

PurpleMoonlight said:

don4l said:

walm said:

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!!

We are not going to lose access to the single market.

Access to the single market is a misleading term.

We will either pay to be a member of the single market, or we will trade with members of the EU on WTO or such other agreed terms.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Thursday 22 December 13:26

The UK won't be paying to be a member of the single market.

The UK might pay a fee to 'access' the single market if that ends up being part of a deal that is negotiated.

I don't see anything that is misleading about the term 'access' to the single market,most of the Brexit MP's have coined the term, most know what it means.

Many countries have 'access' to the single market.