Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 4)
Discussion
Mortarboard said:
Vanden Saab said:
Oh, you did not read the link from dontbesilly that you just rubbished... never mind...
Whaaaaaat?You prefer an opinion piece from a biased source, over two academic articles from a fellow brexiter?
Colour me shocked
A German think tank in favour of closer eu ties is a biased source. Colour me surprised...
Edited by Vanden Saab on Friday 31st March 21:54
Vanden Saab said:
Mortarboard said:
Vanden Saab said:
Oh, you did not read the link from dontbesilly that you just rubbished... never mind...
Whaaaaaat?You prefer an opinion piece from a biased source, over two academic articles from a fellow brexiter?
Colour me shocked
A German think tank in favour of closer eu ties is a biased source. Colour me surprised...
M.
Vanden Saab said:
HM-2 said:
Vanden Saab said:
As being in the SM only gained the UK 1% of GDP
On what is this assertion based?Remind me, who hasn't read what they're purportedly citing? Spoiler alert: the Critic article completely misrepresents the data source it cites and claims it says something it doesn't, which you'd have realised if you'd follower the link they handily provide.
Mortarboard said:
Vanden Saab said:
Mortarboard said:
Vanden Saab said:
Oh, you did not read the link from dontbesilly that you just rubbished... never mind...
Whaaaaaat?You prefer an opinion piece from a biased source, over two academic articles from a fellow brexiter?
Colour me shocked
A German think tank in favour of closer eu ties is a biased source. Colour me surprised...
M.
VS said:
Oh, you did not read the link from dontbesilly
Vanden Saab said:
Mortarboard said:
Vanden Saab said:
Mortarboard said:
Vanden Saab said:
Oh, you did not read the link from dontbesilly that you just rubbished... never mind...
Whaaaaaat?You prefer an opinion piece from a biased source, over two academic articles from a fellow brexiter?
Colour me shocked
A German think tank in favour of closer eu ties is a biased source. Colour me surprised...
M.
VS said:
Oh, you did not read the link from dontbesilly
Turb's cited papers, for those with an interest.
Not sure he expected folk to actuallt y read his sources, mind.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/66144/1/__lse.ac.uk_stora...
https://issuu.com/centreforeuropeanreform/docs/pbr...
M.
Not sure he expected folk to actuallt y read his sources, mind.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/66144/1/__lse.ac.uk_stora...
https://issuu.com/centreforeuropeanreform/docs/pbr...
M.
HM-2 said:
Vanden Saab said:
Mortarboard said:
Vanden Saab said:
Mortarboard said:
Vanden Saab said:
Oh, you did not read the link from dontbesilly that you just rubbished... never mind...
Whaaaaaat?You prefer an opinion piece from a biased source, over two academic articles from a fellow brexiter?
Colour me shocked
A German think tank in favour of closer eu ties is a biased source. Colour me surprised...
M.
VS said:
Oh, you did not read the link from dontbesilly
Vanden Saab said:
Wrong sort of GDP
It's not even the "wrong sort of GDP", it's a complete misrepresentation of the data source. I 100% have no idea where they've, or you, or silly, think the data set supports the assertion that "the UK only gained 1% of GDP from single market membership" because it is absolutely, unequivocally not what the data set The Critic cite as saying, says. There's a lesson to be learned here at quoting things from questionable outlets at face value without actually checking the sources they cite.
turbobloke said:
Focusing on unknowable GDP impacts via guesstimates based on a constantly evolving trade context really is myopic. Even so, the guesswork to date has suggested marginally less growth per year (not contraction) over many years, in which covid and Ukraine have already intervened. The annual changes being guessed are at the level of decimals, the same magnitude as corrections to GDP. .
What are your calcs for the increase in gdp due to Brexit? Or what other calcs, even from pro Brexit organisations, on the impact on gdp due to Brexit? Has anyone calculated a positive impact on GDP? Or is it not worth looking at because it does not support your narrative?
Mortarboard said:
Sway said:
What benefits does SM membership provide (MB, let's ignore REACH as that's not specifically SM related!)?
Easy to see the benefit. Take Brexit, as an example 
The current EU/UK deal is essentially tarrif and quota free (to all intents and purposes).
Yet it's costing the UK about 4% of GDP in terms of trade etc.
We can only argue that this extra cost is either:
-Due to leaving the SM
-Due to leaving the CU
-Due to leaving both the SM and CU
We can discount much of the CU "cost", as none of that isn't replaceable by UK owned processes.
It appears that leaving the SM specifically has introduced trade friction/resistance to the movement of goods (I know, your corner of the world isn't affected - not including you in the 4% of GDP loss!)
Can the uk ease that friction? Sure!
But why hasn't it? The border infrastructure & resources need are woefully behind. And it's not like any of this was unforeseen.
Main benefit of the SM appears to be that you don't have to rely on the government to smooth trade flows.
M.
Problem is, even joining the SM doesn't change the 'friction' - UK border processes aren't a factor for exports trade. Genuinely don't see how SM access changes smoothness of trade flows, as standards aren't really managed at borders.
Although I would concede that giving the EU the bone of SM membership would massively change the political friction being applied in EU ports of entry.
Glad to have someone actually able to answer the question with some relevant input - others decided to display their ignorance as usual!
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
Focusing on unknowable GDP impacts via guesstimates based on a constantly evolving trade context really is myopic. Even so, the guesswork to date has suggested marginally less growth per year (not contraction) over many years, in which covid and Ukraine have already intervened. The annual changes being guessed are at the level of decimals, the same magnitude as corrections to GDP. .
What are your calcs for the increase in gdp due to Brexit? Or what other calcs, even from pro Brexit organisations, on the impact on gdp due to Brexit? Has anyone calculated a positive impact on GDP? Or is it not worth looking at because it does not support your narrative?
HM-2 said:
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
Focusing on unknowable GDP impacts via guesstimates based on a constantly evolving trade context really is myopic. Even so, the guesswork to date has suggested marginally less growth per year (not contraction) over many years, in which covid and Ukraine have already intervened. The annual changes being guessed are at the level of decimals, the same magnitude as corrections to GDP. .
What are your calcs for the increase in gdp due to Brexit? Or what other calcs, even from pro Brexit organisations, on the impact on gdp due to Brexit? Has anyone calculated a positive impact on GDP? Or is it not worth looking at because it does not support your narrative?
For those obsessed with the 4%, have you looked into what those assumptions are? Can you list some of them out so we can see?
London424 said:
Modelling is only ever as good as the assumptions built in I’m sure you agree?
For those obsessed with the 4%, have you looked into what those assumptions are? Can you list some of them out so we can see?
Let's hope someone can give us a breakdown of the numbers but unless we have missed it nobody has ever provided anything past Simon says or the consensus is...For those obsessed with the 4%, have you looked into what those assumptions are? Can you list some of them out so we can see?
London424 said:
Modelling is only ever as good as the assumptions built in I’m sure you agree?
Absolutely, but nobody has raised any contentions with the "assumptions build in" that are relevant to either the methodology or outcomes. London424 said:
have you looked into what those assumptions are?
Have you? I don't pretend to be a data scientist, but these are models built by independent organisations who do this thing day in, day out as their raison d'etre. I think it's reasonable to view them as valid in the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise. Indeed, where are the competing models that show substantially different outcomes?HM-2 said:
London424 said:
Modelling is only ever as good as the assumptions built in I’m sure you agree?
Absolutely, but nobody has raised any contentions with the "assumptions build in" that are relevant to either the methodology or outcomes. London424 said:
have you looked into what those assumptions are?
Have you? I don't pretend to be a data scientist, but these are models built by independent organisations who do this thing day in, day out as their raison d'etre. I think it's reasonable to view them as valid in the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise. Indeed, where are the competing models that show substantially different outcomes?It is fascinating that the assumption seems to be that a FTA makes almost no difference to our GDP in spite of the increase in trade while leaving the EU makes a huge difference to GDP while it seems having almost no impact on trade figures. I would be very interested if someone could have a go at squaring that circle but I will not hold my breath as the whole premise of the 4% seems to be 'I don't know how they work it out but modelling' or something...
Vanden Saab said:
According to the OBR it seems much of the suggested 4% comes from an expected reduction in net migration along with a reduction in business investment.
That doesn't actually seem to be what the OBR is saying:"The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information)."
HM-2 said:
Vanden Saab said:
According to the OBR it seems much of the suggested 4% comes from an expected reduction in net migration along with a reduction in business investment.
That doesn't actually seem to be what the OBR is saying:"The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information)."
We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening.
What is your explanation of that paragraph.
HM-2 said:
London424 said:
Modelling is only ever as good as the assumptions built in I’m sure you agree?
Absolutely, but nobody has raised any contentions with the "assumptions build in" that are relevant to either the methodology or outcomes. Have a root around to see if you can locate academic criticism arguing that some models assume trade patterns will remain unchanged after Brexit, which has not been the case, obviously, but it's an attractive simplification to use as an assumption. Other criticism of models arises for omitting or not taking fully into account key variables e.g. the potential impact of non-tariff barriers to trade, such as regulatory divergence, which have significant economic effects.
Rather than nobody, there are too many sources of raised contentions to list, as a start consider these criticisms of brexit modelling and go from there.
- many Brexit economic models assume that trade patterns will remain unchanged after Brexit, and need to take into account additional detail regarding barriers to and cost of trade, also significant changes in trade patterns under new trade arrangements
-Brexit economic modelling is weakened when not taking fully into account the potential impact of non-tariff barriers to trade
-Brexit economic models are based on assumptions about trade costs that are outdated and fail to reflect recent developments in international trade, including the rise of protectionism
-many Brexit economic models fail to take into account the potential for changes in the location of production and investment, in that brexit will lead to an ongoing reorganisation of production networks and supply chains, which would have significant economic implications (and which is broadly similar to what led to adverse changes at some UK ports following EEC accession, for around 13 years)
Two quotes you may notice from the fruits of your searches (not expecting you to look, but who knows) I've already looked and won't be doing all your homework for you.
"It is too soon to know whether Britain leaving the European Union will prove to be...the start of a new era of protectionism" hence model assumption shortcomings, and premature adjudication inherent in the outcomes.
"Modelling (the impacts of) changes in non-tariff barriers, such as customs procedures, market access restrictions and regulation, is a necessarily imperfect art"
Inevitable inadequacy within noble efforts. Note that if you locate and read papers from the sources used in compiling the above shortlist, it's not a Leave thing, the authors sound more like Remainers.
HM-2 said:
London424 said:
have you looked into what those assumptions are?
Have you? I don't pretend to be a data scientist, but these are models built by independent organisations who do this thing day in, day out as their raison d'etre. I think it's reasonable to view them as valid in the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise. It's more than experts toiling away under your admiring gaze, or being a 'data scientist'. The choice of modelling technique is an issue before any data or assumptions are fed in, e.g. the appropriate criticisms aimed at gravity models in brexit analysis. Quite possibly you need to do some more looking yourself before chiding others. A readable 5 mins starter for ten follows, with more available at a link in the article.
How The Economics Profession Got It Wrong On Brexit
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/08/how-the-...
Vanden Saab said:
Did you read what you quoted?
Yes. Nowhere does it support your primary assertion that the primary factor behind the 4% is the reduction in immigration.
I'd love to understand how and why you think the quoted section supports the argument you've made, because from my perspective the fact that 2/5 of the economic impact occurred before the TCA came into force seems is of no real relevance (partially because 2/5 is not a majority, but also because it in no way precludes future access to the SM being a factor).
Concerns about single market access aren't mutually incompatible with investor reticence. In fact, they're a major contributing factor to it. To a great degree the two are inseparable.
turbobloke said:
Have a root around to see if you can locate academic criticism
I'm not going to spend time making your argument for you. How about you root around and find examples to support your argument instead?turbobloke said:
Rather than nobody, there are too many sources of raised contentions to list, as a start consider these criticisms of brexit modelling and go from there.
You've produced a waffling list of highly generalist contentions here, but I see no efforts made to apply them to the study in question. Therefore serving only to waste your own time, and that of anyone unfortunate enough to have to read it."Some studies have X" issue is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to argue these issues or contentions are relevant to the OBR model, then make that argument. Don't Gish Gallop a list of "general complains about brexit modelling" unless you're willing to argue the relevance of each to the OBRs model in turn.
turbobloke said:
Two quotes you may notice from the fruits of your searches
Two quotes that do nothing more than highlight the nirvana fallacy underpinning most of your arguments. I've not ever pretended that forecasting or modelling are highly precise. Most of the forecasts concede there is a significant margin of error. But this in itself is not a rational or reasonable reason to dismiss them. turbobloke said:
The choice of modelling technique is an issue before any data or assumptions are fed in
Then make some comment on this, rather than posting a gigantic meandering tome that somehow manages to say absolutely nothing. turbobloke said:
How The Economics Profession Got It Wrong On Brexit
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/08/how-the-...
Care to explain the relevance of an article that predates the cited model produced by the OBR by more than three years? What was the phrase you used before, "blind faith"?https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/08/how-the-...
Edited by HM-2 on Saturday 1st April 13:08
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff