The economic consequences of Brexit

[andymadmak]

don'tbesilly said:

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.

Of course it isn't confusing or misleading. People know full well what access means. It's just the usual subjects feigning an attack of the vapours whenever it comes up as if it is all (places back of hand to forehead and throws head back) "just too too hard to fathom" (slumps exhaustedly against suitable piece of furniture)

[paulrockliffe]

///ajd said:

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.

I'm perfectly capable of using Google. Nothing in my response suggests otherwise.

Ironically you are claiming I couldn't possibly understand something based on your own misunderstanding of my post. To be clear, I am not going to go looking for your evidence because I don't need to, not because I can't use Google.

How can you make a judgement on my understanding of your evidence to support your argument, when you haven't told me what that evidence is? Until you tell me what it is I'm supposed to not understand we can't possibly reach any conclusion as to whether I understand it or not.

Presumably you are entering into debate around this issue because you want others to help you understand, reach better conclusions about the issue at hand and also to influence others to your point of view? Do you agree that if you can't or won't post evidence to support the points you are trying to convince others of that they're likely to dismiss your posts for that reason?

I don't understand what EASA has to do with me, but I'm tempted to ask who the people were that set it up and how you know they are intelligent?

[FiF]

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.

Have been busy this morning so no chance to deal with this, others have and the conversation has moved on considerably, so will just comment on a couple of issues.

I see you've later apologised for misreading my input. Thanks for that. Also to clarify something that was my mistake in not making clear was that was considering wider issues than merely economic matters in determining whether we had gained on balance by membership. Have previously written that the economic argument for in or out on it's own is not decisive.

I'll ignore the straight dive into the Remainer gutter with the Gove misquote regarding experts and deal with the sneery you have to read the Guardian etc jibe.

FYI I subscribe to the Guardian, struggle with some of their stuff, but I suppose someone has to give an outlet to the odious Toynbee, however reading it is necessary in trying to obtain a wide perspective.
The BBC and the Independent are a struggle, mainly because of their hypocrisy in claiming to be independent and objective yet are manifestly neither. Likewise try to avoid providing Mail and Express with clicks, though occasionally follow a link, whilst grasping a bulb of garlic and a wooden stake.

Other media sources either subscribed or regularly read, as in daily or several times a week are
The Times
Telegraph, though they are near to getting dumped.
New York Times
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in German
Handelsblatt again in German
Dagens Nyheter in Swedish
Struggle with the French, Le Figaro or L'Opinion when have the time, usually not more than a casual flick.


So kindly take your "read the Guardian" sneer and shove it.

[SKP555]

walm said:

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."

To me it beggars belief that you are still clinging to this transparent nonsense 6 months after it failed to convince anyone.

[Big Al.]

To be continued over here:-

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...