The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Big Al.

Original Poster:

68,798 posts

257 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all

B'stard Child

28,324 posts

245 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
Wow another 125 pages of fun fun fun biggrin

How come Big Al gets the last word in the previous volumes?? wink

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all

I opened the old thread and it said "Topic Closed"

I thought, thank fk for that, and then realised they had opened a new volume.

Bugger.

andymadmak

14,482 posts

269 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
Here's hoping that Vol 2 has more facts and less hysteria

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
You mean like the hysteria over a poll of 88% of economists who said brexit would be bad for GDP - the hysteria being how it is all a conspiracy, all experts are idiots (except Don4l). Everything will be fine, no need to negotiate, the EU single market is a trivial irrelevance we can ignore and the harmonisation of regulation is an evil plot to create an EU superstate.

I predict a continuation of insane post truth babble, sadly.

Interesting to see the calls for every part of our economy to be protected from the possible negative effects of brexit - I read that as every aspect of SM access preserved. Saw some farmers talking about how they had to be protected. Everyone will want protecting, won't they.


sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
You mean like the hysteria over a poll of 88% of economists who said brexit would be bad for GDP - the hysteria being how it is all a conspiracy, all experts are idiots (except Don4l). Everything will be fine, no need to negotiate, the EU single market is a trivial irrelevance we can ignore and the harmonisation of regulation is an evil plot to create an EU superstate.

I predict a continuation of insane post truth babble, sadly.

Interesting to see the calls for every part of our economy to be protected from the possible negative effects of brexit - I read that as every aspect of SM access preserved. Saw some farmers talking about how they had to be protected. Everyone will want protecting, won't they.
You mean the self-selected group of economists who were cherry-picked by the newspaper?
A 17% response rate says an awful lot about the credibility of the survey.

Further, the 88% only refers to the short-term impact of Brexit - I think even the most ardent Brexiters would expect short-term disruption.

Of course the key point to note is that the survey question was based on the UK leaving the EU and the single market.

Something you are now adamant won't happen, I believe?!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 December 15:06

Deptford Draylons

10,480 posts

242 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
You mean like the hysteria over a poll of 88% of economists who said brexit would be bad for GDP - the hysteria being how it is all a conspiracy, all experts are idiots (except Don4l). Everything will be fine, no need to negotiate, the EU single market is a trivial irrelevance we can ignore and the harmonisation of regulation is an evil plot to create an EU superstate.

I predict a continuation of insane post truth babble, sadly.

Interesting to see the calls for every part of our economy to be protected from the possible negative effects of brexit - I read that as every aspect of SM access preserved. Saw some farmers talking about how they had to be protected. Everyone will want protecting, won't they.
How did this 88% fair in their predictions for the period after the referendum ?

andymadmak

14,482 posts

269 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
hysterical stuff
How quickly hope died...

Timmy40

12,915 posts

197 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
As for Farmers wanting 'protecting'. Most farmers voted for Brexit. The NFU backed Remain.

After the result the NFU have carried on with it's viewpoint in much the way the BBC have .i.e. ignore the fact that most of their own members/viewers disagree with them but carry on regardless because even though they were on the losing side they still think there view is the one that should have won.

So yes you have the NFU quoting farmers saying how terrible it all is, except of course they're only quoting the minority of the farmers who actually think it's all terrible.

B'stard Child

28,324 posts

245 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
I opened the old thread and it said "Topic Closed"

I thought, thank fk for that, and then realised they had opened a new volume.

Bugger.
Well we can enjoy the merry-go-round for another 125 pages (other page setting are available)

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
andymadmak said:
///ajd said:
hysterical stuff
How quickly hope died...
Yep, hope fell off a cliff on 24 June smile

There appears to be an admission above from sidicks that our future fortunes and our access to the Single Market are linked.

I also read that whilst some on the remain side said we'd "leave the SM", they also said we would end up paying for SM access - which are the noises that May, Davis and others are now making.

It seems they recognise the huge value of SM access if they are going to still pump billions of UK taxpayers money into the EU to retain access for various sectors - whilst giving up any say over the regulations themselves. Hmmm.

Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 22 December 15:15

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
Yep, hope fell off a cliff on 24 June smile
Only for you.

///adj said:
There appears to be an admission that our future fortunes and our access the the Singke Market are linked.

I also read that whilst some on the remain side said we'd "leave the SM", they also said we wouod end up paying for SM access - which are the noises that May, Davis and others are now making.

It seems they recognise the huge value of SM access if they are going to still pump billions of UK taxpayers money into the EU to retain access for various sectors - whilst giving up any say over the regulations themselves. Hmmm.
Looks like you failed to understand the survey results that you are so quick to highlight!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 December 15:25

paulrockliffe

15,639 posts

226 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
Yep, hope fell off a cliff on 24 June smile

There appears to be an admission above from sidicks that our future fortunes and our access to the Single Market are linked.

I also read that whilst some on the remain side said we'd "leave the SM", they also said we would end up paying for SM access - which are the noises that May, Davis and others are now making.

It seems they recognise the huge value of SM access if they are going to still pump billions of UK taxpayers money into the EU to retain access for various sectors - whilst giving up any say over the regulations themselves. Hmmm.

Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 22 December 15:15
Sorry to interrupt your hysteria, but on the last volume you were about to post some evidence, or avoid it again. Just a gentle nudge in case you forget.

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
Timmy40 said:
As for Farmers wanting 'protecting'. Most farmers voted for Brexit. The NFU backed Remain.

After the result the NFU have carried on with it's viewpoint in much the way the BBC have .i.e. ignore the fact that most of their own members/viewers disagree with them but carry on regardless because even though they were on the losing side they still think there view is the one that should have won.

So yes you have the NFU quoting farmers saying how terrible it all is, except of course they're only quoting the minority of the farmers who actually think it's all terrible.
The same with the fishing industry, most fishermen voted leave including the very fishermen from Bridlington that ///ajd so eloquently lauded in Volume 1.

Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
B'stard Child said:
loafer123 said:
I opened the old thread and it said "Topic Closed"

I thought, thank fk for that, and then realised they had opened a new volume.

Bugger.
Well we can enjoy the merry-go-round for another 125 pages (other page setting are available)
I think we have to agree that such topics provide some light entertainment
(If thousands and thousands of posts on a subject can be described as `light')
In the end it amounts to little more than willy waving, from both sides of the leave /remain argument.
Does anyone seriously believe they have /will change the minds of those on the opposing side to their view? Even if they do, does anyone think the thousands of posts `here' will have any effect on the outcome of the UK`s decision to leave the EU? As posted above some light entertainment perhaps, but anything else? Not really.

AC43

11,435 posts

207 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
andymadmak said:
///ajd said:
hysterical stuff
How quickly hope died...
LOL :-)

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
paulrockliffe said:
Sorry to interrupt your hysteria, but on the last volume you were about to post some evidence, or avoid it again. Just a gentle nudge in case you forget.
It is not my hysteria about the economists - you need to look to your brexiteer collegues who are obsessed with dismissing its results.

Evidence behind the £10 - £1 claim.

Not hard to google as I said before, but if you are still struggling:

http://www.strongerin.co.uk/for_every_1_we_put_in_...

http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/uk-and-the-e...

You can play tunes on the £73-91 Bn benefits - but by any measure they dwarf out £8.5Bn costs - this is where the £10-£1 cones from.

Try not to get too hysterical is trying to rubbish these evidence based assessments, or get wrapped around the axle of technicalities over the data.



Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
And yet the 24 billion pound UK/EU trade deficit in just the first 3 months of 2016 alone, dwarf any benefits the UK has derived from being in the EU.
If this is added to the almost 40 years that the UK has run a billions of pounds a year trade deficit with the EU, the benefits for the UK as a whole of being in the EU are somewhat in deeply negative territory.
Still as long as `some' business have made a little by being in the EU, it really doesn't matter about the UK as a whole, does it?

walm

10,609 posts

201 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet the 24 billion pound UK/EU trade deficit in just the first 3 months of 2016 alone, dwarf any benefits the UK has derived from being in the EU.
If this is added to the almost 40 years that the UK has run a billions of pounds a year trade deficit with the EU, the benefits for the UK as a whole of being in the EU are somewhat in deeply negative territory.
Still as long as `some' business have made a little by being in the EU, it really doesn't matter about the UK as a whole, does it?
Your grasp of basic economics is embarrassingly bad, even for this part of PH.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Thursday 22nd December 2016
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet the 24 billion pound UK/EU trade deficit in just the first 3 months of 2016 alone, dwarf any benefits the UK has derived from being in the EU.
If this is added to the almost 40 years that the UK has run a billions of pounds a year trade deficit with the EU, the benefits for the UK as a whole of being in the EU are somewhat in deeply negative territory.
Still as long as `some' business have made a little by being in the EU, it really doesn't matter about the UK as a whole, does it?
I'm not sure what point you are making.

Are you claiming the UK would have produced those imported goods in house had we not been members of the EU.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED