The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
Can someone help explain the recent David debacle for me?
On the one hand, he apparently said that sector analysis had been carried out in "excruciating detail", and on the other he says there are no impact assessments at all.
Has he explained this apparent contradiction? Is the sector analysis a different thing than an impact assessment? If so, what's the difference? Why would he not have said "we've not done impact assessments but we have done sector analysis"?
He appears to have allowed the narrative to form that he's not done his homework, despite telling teacher that he had...
On the one hand, he apparently said that sector analysis had been carried out in "excruciating detail", and on the other he says there are no impact assessments at all.
Has he explained this apparent contradiction? Is the sector analysis a different thing than an impact assessment? If so, what's the difference? Why would he not have said "we've not done impact assessments but we have done sector analysis"?
He appears to have allowed the narrative to form that he's not done his homework, despite telling teacher that he had...
Tuna said:
Breadvan72 said:
Talking of paradigm shifts, Daily Mail comments are starting to look increasingly pro Remain.
A serious question for any serious minded Leavers (those who treat Leave as a religious belief need not bother to reply). Given what we now know, isn't it time to think again?
What exactly do we now know? I've seen so many inaccurate claims over what people think is happening in the negotiations, it's not clear to me what you think has changed?A serious question for any serious minded Leavers (those who treat Leave as a religious belief need not bother to reply). Given what we now know, isn't it time to think again?
I'm not sure why you think any serious minded Leavers would want to reply, as your message was followed by ranting, sneering and mutual back patting from a bunch of Remainers (I presume, from their posts) who clearly have not the slightest intention of engaging with any ideas that contradict their own.
k is an artful concealment of masterful negotiations towards ultimate victory". If you are upset at being laughed at, get a grip and stop living in a fantasy world in which all is well. When the facts change, a rational person changes his mind. A religious person, not so much. Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th December 13:58
Blue Oval84 said:
Can someone help explain the recent David debacle for me?
On the one hand, he apparently said that sector analysis had been carried out in "excruciating detail", and on the other he says there are no impact assessments at all.
Has he explained this apparent contradiction? Is the sector analysis a different thing than an impact assessment? If so, what's the difference? Why would he not have said "we've not done impact assessments but we have done sector analysis"?
He appears to have allowed the narrative to form that he's not done his homework, despite telling teacher that he had...
My take.On the one hand, he apparently said that sector analysis had been carried out in "excruciating detail", and on the other he says there are no impact assessments at all.
Has he explained this apparent contradiction? Is the sector analysis a different thing than an impact assessment? If so, what's the difference? Why would he not have said "we've not done impact assessments but we have done sector analysis"?
He appears to have allowed the narrative to form that he's not done his homework, despite telling teacher that he had...
Done impact analysis, which turns to be abysmal, but doesn't think that he'll need to disclose anything, so says, 'it's done but we'll redact sensitive (read really, really bad) parts.
Gets to the point that he needs to disclose them in full.
They are so bad, that '2008 like paradigm shift' is entering the spin machine, but actually, no we can't publish them as they are so bad, I mean we haven't done them at all, they don't exist so nothing to publish.
Blue Oval84 said:
Can someone help explain the recent David debacle for me?
On the one hand, he apparently said that sector analysis had been carried out in "excruciating detail", and on the other he says there are no impact assessments at all.
Has he explained this apparent contradiction? Is the sector analysis a different thing than an impact assessment? If so, what's the difference? Why would he not have said "we've not done impact assessments but we have done sector analysis"?
He appears to have allowed the narrative to form that he's not done his homework, despite telling teacher that he had...
As far as I can understand it there have been a number of different sectorial studies carried out trying to establish the concerns of the companies in each sector and the priorities of each of these industries in the forthcoming EU negotiations. This didn't apparently include impact assessments of the effect of a deal that hasn't been negotiated yet. Nor, Davis claimed, has such an assessment been carried out for the economy as a whole.On the one hand, he apparently said that sector analysis had been carried out in "excruciating detail", and on the other he says there are no impact assessments at all.
Has he explained this apparent contradiction? Is the sector analysis a different thing than an impact assessment? If so, what's the difference? Why would he not have said "we've not done impact assessments but we have done sector analysis"?
He appears to have allowed the narrative to form that he's not done his homework, despite telling teacher that he had...
Hence, if you believe Davis, impact assessments of the type demanded never actually existed.
jjlynn27 said:
My take.
Done impact analysis, which turns to be abysmal, but doesn't think that he'll need to disclose anything, so says, 'it's done but we'll redact sensitive (read really, really bad) parts.
Gets to the point that he needs to disclose them in full.
They are so bad, that '2008 like paradigm shift' is entering the spin machine, but actually, no we can't publish them as they are so bad, I mean we haven't done them at all, they don't exist so nothing to publish.
Your take = making stuff up Done impact analysis, which turns to be abysmal, but doesn't think that he'll need to disclose anything, so says, 'it's done but we'll redact sensitive (read really, really bad) parts.
Gets to the point that he needs to disclose them in full.
They are so bad, that '2008 like paradigm shift' is entering the spin machine, but actually, no we can't publish them as they are so bad, I mean we haven't done them at all, they don't exist so nothing to publish.
jjlynn27 said:
Blue Oval84 said:
Can someone help explain the recent David debacle for me?
On the one hand, he apparently said that sector analysis had been carried out in "excruciating detail", and on the other he says there are no impact assessments at all.
Has he explained this apparent contradiction? Is the sector analysis a different thing than an impact assessment? If so, what's the difference? Why would he not have said "we've not done impact assessments but we have done sector analysis"?
He appears to have allowed the narrative to form that he's not done his homework, despite telling teacher that he had...
?.On the one hand, he apparently said that sector analysis had been carried out in "excruciating detail", and on the other he says there are no impact assessments at all.
Has he explained this apparent contradiction? Is the sector analysis a different thing than an impact assessment? If so, what's the difference? Why would he not have said "we've not done impact assessments but we have done sector analysis"?
He appears to have allowed the narrative to form that he's not done his homework, despite telling teacher that he had...
My take.
Done impact analysis, which turns to be abysmal, but doesn't think that he'll need to disclose anything, so says, 'it's done but we'll redact sensitive (read really, really bad) parts.
Gets to the point that he needs to disclose them in full.
They are so bad, that '2008 like paradigm shift' is entering the spin machine, but actually, no we can't publish them as they are so bad, I mean we haven't done them at all, they don't exist so nothing to publish.
crankedup said:
How can impact assessments be worked upon when we have yet to begin trade talks with the EU. Cannot see the relevance or indeed the point of such work until such times that we are .agreed to our trading arrangements with the EU.
So why did he say a few months ago they had been done? If they were done and were not relevant because they didn't reflect what are likely to be the conditions if and/or when a deal is done that is one thing, but not what he said. Presumably the negotiating position is informed by expected effects of the outcomes, so as to provide starting a reference points - Are we to believe the analysis has not been done? There isn't much point doing the analysis after the deal is done.crankedup said:
How can impact assessments be worked upon when we have yet to begin trade talks with the EU. Cannot see the relevance or indeed the point of such work until such times that we are .agreed to our trading arrangements with the EU.
Doesnt explain why an impact assessment of no deal (WTO) hasnt been done. Although I think according to Dan Hannan that the world bank has done one (2% reduction in our trade with the EU, but I dont know what assumptions were made)Gargamel said:
jjlynn27 said:
My take.
Done impact analysis, which turns to be abysmal, but doesn't think that he'll need to disclose anything, so says, 'it's done but we'll redact sensitive (read really, really bad) parts.
Gets to the point that he needs to disclose them in full.
They are so bad, that '2008 like paradigm shift' is entering the spin machine, but actually, no we can't publish them as they are so bad, I mean we haven't done them at all, they don't exist so nothing to publish.
Your take = making stuff up Done impact analysis, which turns to be abysmal, but doesn't think that he'll need to disclose anything, so says, 'it's done but we'll redact sensitive (read really, really bad) parts.
Gets to the point that he needs to disclose them in full.
They are so bad, that '2008 like paradigm shift' is entering the spin machine, but actually, no we can't publish them as they are so bad, I mean we haven't done them at all, they don't exist so nothing to publish.
Its either the above, or he is massively incompetent and hasnt done anything and has been lying to everyone for a year.
Which is worse? Both are f
king horrendous.This is a reasonable summary of what work was carried out and how it differed to how many had interpreted previous remarks.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/d...
They were surveys rather than "impact" assessments.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/d...
They were surveys rather than "impact" assessments.
Gargamel said:
jjlynn27 said:
My take.
Done impact analysis, which turns to be abysmal, but doesn't think that he'll need to disclose anything, so says, 'it's done but we'll redact sensitive (read really, really bad) parts.
Gets to the point that he needs to disclose them in full.
They are so bad, that '2008 like paradigm shift' is entering the spin machine, but actually, no we can't publish them as they are so bad, I mean we haven't done them at all, they don't exist so nothing to publish.
Your take = making stuff up Done impact analysis, which turns to be abysmal, but doesn't think that he'll need to disclose anything, so says, 'it's done but we'll redact sensitive (read really, really bad) parts.
Gets to the point that he needs to disclose them in full.
They are so bad, that '2008 like paradigm shift' is entering the spin machine, but actually, no we can't publish them as they are so bad, I mean we haven't done them at all, they don't exist so nothing to publish.
Feel free to come up with your take.
p1stonhead said:
The most likely scenario though even if only Davis knows. He said multiple times that many of them existed. Suddenly when asked, they didnt.
Its either the above, or he is massively incompetent and hasnt done anything and has been lying to everyone for a year.
Which is worse? Both are fking horrendous.
The sector analysis does exist, but they aren't an analysis of the impact of Brexit. Its either the above, or he is massively incompetent and hasnt done anything and has been lying to everyone for a year.
Which is worse? Both are f
king horrendous.Breadvan72 said:
Tuna said:
Breadvan72 said:
Talking of paradigm shifts, Daily Mail comments are starting to look increasingly pro Remain.
A serious question for any serious minded Leavers (those who treat Leave as a religious belief need not bother to reply). Given what we now know, isn't it time to think again?
What exactly do we now know? I've seen so many inaccurate claims over what people think is happening in the negotiations, it's not clear to me what you think has changed?A serious question for any serious minded Leavers (those who treat Leave as a religious belief need not bother to reply). Given what we now know, isn't it time to think again?
I'm not sure why you think any serious minded Leavers would want to reply, as your message was followed by ranting, sneering and mutual back patting from a bunch of Remainers (I presume, from their posts) who clearly have not the slightest intention of engaging with any ideas that contradict their own.
k is an artful concealment of masterful negotiations towards ultimate victory". If you are upset at being laughed at, get a grip and stop living in a fantasy world in which all is well. When the facts change, a rational person changes his mind,. A religious person, not so much. JagLover said:
This is a reasonable summary of what work was carried out and how it differed to how many had interpreted previous remarks.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/d...
They were surveys rather than "impact" assessments.
Taking refuge in semantics.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/d...
They were surveys rather than "impact" assessments.
Gargamel said:
p1stonhead said:
The most likely scenario though even if only Davis knows. He said multiple times that many of them existed. Suddenly when asked, they didnt.
Its either the above, or he is massively incompetent and hasnt done anything and has been lying to everyone for a year.
Which is worse? Both are fking horrendous.
The sector analysis does exist, but they aren't an analysis of the impact of Brexit. Its either the above, or he is massively incompetent and hasnt done anything and has been lying to everyone for a year.
Which is worse? Both are f
king horrendous.The Times Nov 28 said:
David Davis yesterday handed over to the Brexit committee 39 documents, spanning 850 pages, detailing the government’s analysis of the effects of leaving the European Union on 58 areas of the economy.
They are effects not impact, right? Breadvan72 said:
JagLover said:
This is a reasonable summary of what work was carried out and how it differed to how many had interpreted previous remarks.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/d...
They were surveys rather than "impact" assessments.
Taking refuge in semantics.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/d...
They were surveys rather than "impact" assessments.
"Excruciating detail" apparently means 850 pages for ~ 50 studies, so on average 17 pages each, a slim pamphlet at best. No doubt half of those pages were titles, indices, references & white space..
Davis will never be believed by parliament again. Unfortunately he appears to be shameless, as well as lazy, arrogant and ignorant. Ideal party leadership material apparently.
"“thick as mince, lazy as a toad and vain as Narcissus” - Dominic Cummings got something right after all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff