Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Bank of England now saying it had its own Michael Fish moment when predicting what it did should we vote to leave the EU.

........

Bank of England now saying it had its own Michael Fish moment when predicting what it did should we vote to leave the EU.

This admission is not a minor issue, in my opinion. It is the BoE that has informed the British Government and, disgracefully, the British people, on the "consequences" of voting leave. Mark Carney should resign and return to Canada where he can spend time realising that economics and political forecasts are not sciences. More like opinion, rhetoric and gambling. Thank God the British public saw through these overpaid jokers. They didn't see the 2008 crash happening and they completely overplayed their hand over Brexit.

Brexit will be what the British people will make of it and I have every confidence we will be just fine. To quote a great politician, "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Junker?"

I'm more than a little relieved that our economy did not crash in the immediate aftermath of last year's vote. However, claims that leaving the EU will somehow be a consequence-free move for our economy, years before we have even left that body, seem grossly premature at best - kind of like jumping out of a tall building and proclaiming the experience to be a entirely painless one halfway down.

 

Meanwhile, it would seem that any hopes that the UK will be able to "buy" access to the EU Single Market area post Bretix, without accepting that Market's core principles as Norway has, are unlikely to be realised:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38523368

It's funny how the EU won't allow us to 'buy' access, yet they rely on NATO for defence without paying their fair share.

This admission is not a minor issue, in my opinion. It is the BoE that has informed the British Government and, disgracefully, the British people, on the "consequences" of voting leave. Mark Carney should resign and return to Canada where he can spend time realising that economics and political forecasts are not sciences. More like opinion, rhetoric and gambling. Thank God the British public saw through these overpaid jokers. They didn't see the 2008 crash happening and they completely overplayed their hand over Brexit.

Brexit will be what the British people will make of it and I have every confidence we will be just fine. To quote a great politician, "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Junker?"

"The only function of economic forecasting, is to make astrology look respectable."

Meanwhile, it would seem that any hopes that the UK will be able to "buy" access to the EU Single Market area post Bretix, without accepting that Market's core principles as Norway has, are unlikely to be realised:

Good. A clean Brexit discarding membership of the single market and leaving the customs union is what we need to do. We certainly shouldn't pay anything for access to the single market and free movement of peoples and subjugation of our legal system to the ECJ are red lines for us anyway.

Jamie Oliver closing some restaurants, citing Brexit as a catalyst:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/06/jamie-oliver-close-restaurants-brexit-jamies-italian-barbecoa

Seems somewhat at odds with yesterday's report that the service sector is in good health?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38515971

The irony is that Brexiteers desperately need the EU to be nice to them, even whilst they keep up the full volume BS. There is no majority support amongst the UK electorate for hard Brexit. Unless the EU offer them a lifeline they're screwed.

Jamie Oliver closing some restaurants, citing Brexit as a catalyst:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/06/jamie-oliver-close-restaurants-brexit-jamies-italian-barbecoa

 

Seems somewhat at odds with yesterday's report that the service sector is in good health?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38515971

Well, Jamie Oliver closed his restaurant in Winchester because it was dreadfully overpriced and ordinary.

Rick Stein was happy to take over the location.

Well, Jamie Oliver closed his restaurant in Winchester because it was dreadfully overpriced and ordinary.

 

Rick Stein was happy to take over the location.

Seems a bit fishy to me.

Being a bit ****e is the most likely explanation for Jamie Oliver's gaffs packing it in.

... and of course Jamie's going bust in Aus had everything to do with Brexit

Good. A clean Brexit discarding membership of the single market and leaving the customs union is what we need to do. We certainly shouldn't pay anything for access to the single market and free movement of peoples and subjugation of our legal system to the ECJ are red lines for us anyway.

^ The post of a true fanatic.

Good. A clean Brexit discarding membership of the single market and leaving the customs union is what we need to do. We certainly shouldn't pay anything for access to the single market and free movement of peoples and subjugation of our legal system to the ECJ are red lines for us anyway.

OK what about all the EU citizens currently living and working in the UK? What happens to them?

^ The post of a true fanatic.

I'm a pragmatist. Somewhere down the line, the EU member states that have the most to lose by making our access to the single market difficult, will soon realise that it is too costly to them in terms of falling exports and the resultant loss of jobs. Most other countries outside of the EU that have access to the single market don't have to pay for it, nor do they have to accept freedom of movement of peoples, so why should we? We will benefit by leaving the customs union in order that we will be free to arrange our own trade deals with the rest of the World.

What would you propose, bearing in mind that we will be leaving the EU?

OK what about all the EU citizens currently living and working in the UK? What happens to them?

I don't see why a reciprocal agreement to accept the current status quo would be a problem.

I'm a pragmatist. Somewhere down the line, the EU member states that have the most to lose by making our access to the single market difficult, will soon realise that it is too costly to them in terms of falling exports and the resultant loss of jobs. Most other countries outside of the EU that have access to the single market don't have to pay for it, nor do they have to accept freedom of movement of peoples, so why should we? We will benefit by leaving the customs union in order that we will be free to arrange our own trade deals with the rest of the World.

 

What would you propose, bearing in mind that we will be leaving the EU?

Drinking the Kool-Aid again Les? Who has access to the single market?

i,m glad hes gone to be honest,why do we need experts has all those bright clever brexiters say,surely we have the experts on here and there mates down the pub know better on getting a good deal and wrap all those trade deals over the world in 3 months while cutting red tape..meaning workers protection and rights in coded terms being a world export power:lol: we call the shots.. maybe we can have a raffle to chose our new negotiator from weatherspoons drinkers..lol what a joke brexit is.. the reality is we seen the pound slump makeing it cheaper for foreign buying up uk plc on the cheap and debt to hit 91 % of gdp in good times ,hate to think what will happen if we have a major downturn and inflation. still i believe there is a film out at the cinemas called la la land and was shocked it was not about brexit:D feel sorry for the young people of this country whos future has been wrecked .

No need to feel sorry for young people like myself old chum - looking forward to a more outwood looking, liberalised and democratic Britain.

We need to carry on pursuing talks with the U.S, Australia etc as our hand will be strengthened if the EU knows we're lining up free trade deals with such players. Our walk away position has to be WTO trade tariffs (2-3%?) . Then we use the revenue from tariffs on European goods to help stimulate the economy, or lower VAT or whatever for consumers. And whilst there may be short term negative affects of tariff barriers, we will slowly be able to make our own trade deals and break down tariff barriers, from Australia to Africa, which will soon help to lower the price of consumer goods. No more protectionist tariffs on Australian tomato farmers or what have you.

As for Ivan Rogers, the bloke should have left on June the 24th - end of the day he was in part responsible for a terrible 'renegotiation', and clearly has no balanced viewpoint to EU membership in which he'd want to make a success out of Brexit. Remember it was the dogma of him and EU officials/Merkel which led to us leaving. All they had to do was provide meaningful concessions on free movement, recognising we were a unique case (small Island, magnet for southern/Eastern Europe etc), and it would have swung to us staying. Luckily for Eurosceptics like myself, they couldn't think beyond their nose.

i,m glad hes gone to be honest,why do we need experts has all those bright clever brexiters say,surely we have the experts on here and there mates down the pub know better on getting a good deal and wrap all those trade deals over the world in 3 months while cutting red tape..meaning workers protection and rights in coded terms being a world export power:lol: we call the shots.. maybe we can have a raffle to chose our new negotiator from weatherspoons drinkers..lol what a joke brexit is.. the reality is we seen the pound slump makeing it cheaper for foreign buying up uk plc on the cheap and debt to hit 91 % of gdp in good times ,hate to think what will happen if we have a major downturn and inflation. still i believe there is a film out at the cinemas called la la land and was shocked it was not about brexit:D feel sorry for the young people of this country whos future has been wrecked .

No need to feel sorry for young people like myself old chum - looking forward to a more outward looking, liberalised and democratic Britain.

We need to carry on pursuing talks with the U.S, Australia etc as our hand will be strengthened if the EU knows we're lining up free trade deals with such players. Our walk away position has to be WTO trade tariffs (2-3%?) . Then we use the revenue from tariffs on European goods to help stimulate the economy, or lower VAT or whatever for consumers. And whilst there may be short term negative affects of tariff barriers, we will slowly be able to make our own trade deals and break down tariff barriers, from Australia to Africa, which will soon help to lower the price of consumer goods. No more protectionist tariffs on Australian tomato farmers or what have you.

As for Ivan Rogers, the bloke should have left on June the 24th - end of the day he was in part responsible for a terrible 'renegotiation', and clearly has no balanced viewpoint to EU membership in which he'd want to make a success out of Brexit. Remember it was the dogma of him and EU officials/Merkel which led to us leaving. All they had to do was provide meaningful concessions on free movement, recognising we were a unique case (small Island, magnet for southern/Eastern Europe etc), and it would have swung to us staying. Luckily for Eurosceptics like myself, they couldn't think beyond their nose.

...nor do they have to accept freedom of movement of peoples, so why should we? We will benefit by leaving the customs union in order that we will be free to arrange our own trade deals with the rest of the World. What would you propose, bearing in mind that we will be leaving the EU?

What I would like to know is that if an EU member state opted out of the Schengen Agreement, it is thus restricting the free-movement of people, yet is still a member of the single market. EU states that opted out are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania and the United Kingdom.

Of course the UK will be able to be part of the single market yet opt out of the free movement of people. That, in practice, is what is happening at the moment and even countries which are part of the Schengen Agreement, such as Denmark, Sweden and even Germany have introduced border controls.

The principle of the freedom of movement within the EU is a dead duck, let's face it....

Drinking the Kool-Aid again Les? Who has access to the single market?

Any countries that are not subject to trade sanctions can trade with members of the single market.

But there is a big difference between being able to trade with the single market and being a member of it. For instance, the United States sells into the single market but there are no common safety standards for goods such as fridges or cars and tariffs and quotas may be imposed on its products.

The 28 members of the European Union are full members of the European Economic Area - the single market. But there are other members of the club too.

The four members of the European Free Trade Association also participate in the single market - but to different degrees.

Take Norway for instance. Norway has full access to the single market but is not in the EU. It pays a contribution to the EU Budget to gain that access and has to sign up to all the rules of the club - including its common regulations and standards.

People from across the EU are free to live and work in Norway too, but the country is exempt from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs. The downside for Norway is that it has no say over how the rules of the Single Market are created.

Another example is Switzerland. It has a free trade agreement with the EU and a number of bilateral agreements, which give it access to the Single Market for most of its industries.

However, it does not have full access to the single market for its banking sector.

Any countries that are not subject to trade sanctions can trade with members of the single market.

 

But there is a big difference between being able to trade with the single market and being a member of it. For instance, the United States sells into the single market but there are no common safety standards for goods such as fridges or cars and tariffs and quotas may be imposed on its products.

 

The 28 members of the European Union are full members of the European Economic Area - the single market. But there are other members of the club too.

The four members of the European Free Trade Association also participate in the single market - but to different degrees.

Take Norway for instance. Norway has full access to the single market but is not in the EU. It pays a contribution to the EU Budget to gain that access and has to sign up to all the rules of the club - including its common regulations and standards.

People from across the EU are free to live and work in Norway too, but the country is exempt from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs. The downside for Norway is that it has no say over how the rules of the Single Market are created.

Another example is Switzerland. It has a free trade agreement with the EU and a number of bilateral agreements, which give it access to the Single Market for most of its industries.

However, it does not have full access to the single market for its banking sector.

Yes I read the same Beeb article. You left out the most important point:

"Because the UK already complies with single market regulations, a UK-EU free trade deal on goods may be fairly straightforward.

But the UK's service sector is about 80% of our economy and the City of London dominates financial services in the EU. In the negotiations that would follow a British exit from the EU everything would depend on the deal the remaining EU members wanted to cut.

And the Remain campaign insists the EU would demand the UK accepts free movement and common regulations in any deal that provides single market access".

No matter how many times the EU says Freedom of Movement (FoM) is critical to any prospective deal, we're told that the plucky UK is going to have its cake and eat it, that the EU can't really mean what it says and, failing that, belligerent Jonny Foreigner is cutting its nose off to spite its face.

A lack of historical nous and empathy prevents our little kippers from understanding why FoM is politically so important to most Europeans, especially those who used to be trapped inside the Eastern Bloc; why passporting into the Eurozone is so economically sensitive given the UK's unique ability to sell financial products into what is tantamount another economy, impacting among other things its central bank (the ECB) exposure; and why the EU budget is structured the way it is (a mechanism to compensate those countries and regions who've agreed to open up their markets to the UK and other advanced competitors, notwithstanding the fact that doing so threatens local industry, employment and tax base).

None of this features on the Kipper radar; if it did, the UK might be in a better position to negotiate and understand the complex set of interests and trade-offs at stake. No, instead we have a combination of arrogance and ignorance that will ultimately lead to massive disappointment.

Yes I read the same Beeb article. You left out the most important point:

 

"Because the UK already complies with single market regulations, a UK-EU free trade deal on goods may be fairly straightforward.

 

But the UK's service sector is about 80% of our economy and the City of London dominates financial services in the EU. In the negotiations that would follow a British exit from the EU everything would depend on the deal the remaining EU members wanted to cut.

 

And the Remain campaign insists the EU would demand the UK accepts free movement and common regulations in any deal that provides single market access".

 

No matter how many times the EU says Freedom of Movement (FoM) is critical to any prospective deal, we're told that the plucky UK is going to have its cake and eat it, that the EU can't really mean what it says and, failing that, belligerent Jonny Foreigner is cutting its nose off to spite its face.

 

A lack of historical nous and empathy prevents our little kippers from understanding why FoM is politically so important to most Europeans, especially those who used to be trapped inside the Eastern Bloc; why passporting into the Eurozone is so economically sensitive given the UK's unique ability to sell financial products into what is tantamount another economy, impacting among other things its central bank (the ECB) exposure; and why the EU budget is structured the way it is (a mechanism to compensate those countries and regions who've agreed to open up their markets to the UK and other advanced competitors, notwithstanding the fact that doing so threatens local industry, employment and tax base).

 

None of this features on the Kipper radar; if it did, the UK might be in a better position to negotiate and understand the complex set of interests and trade-offs at stake. No, instead we have a combination of arrogance and ignorance that will ultimately lead to massive disappointment.

What great 'historical nous' do we 'kippers' need to understand then, since this only became an issue post 2004? Post 2004, with the new entries of Poland etc, and then since then the disastrous project of the Euro which has left swathes of southern European young people searching for jobs, and thus flocking to the UK for work. Most realists can't see the situation getting much better anytime soon, so thus people were faced at the referendum with a choice of higher and higher levels of EU migration for the foreseeable future or regaining border control, and a majority chose the later. But keep trying to big it up into something too complicated for 'kippers' to grasp..

What great 'historical nous' do we 'kippers' need to understand then, since this only became an issue post 2004? Post 2004, with the new entries of Poland etc, and then since then the disastrous project of the Euro which has left swathes of southern European young people searching for jobs, and thus flocking to the UK for work. Most realists can't see the situation getting much better anytime soon, so thus people were faced at the referendum with a choice of higher and higher levels of EU migration for the foreseeable future or regaining border control, and a majority chose the later. But keep trying to big it up into something too complicated for 'kippers' to grasp..

And yet the actual impact has been nowhere near as big as you rabidly like to tell yourself.

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

LSE is a Fabian, left of centre Institution. Very pro-globalism, pro EU domination, pro-managerialism over democracy. Ignore their contrived propaganda dressed up as economic science.

LSE is a Fabian, left of centre Institution. Very pro-globalism, pro EU domination, pro-managerialism over democracy. Ignore their propaganda.

Sweeping generalisations and empty platitudes just make you look a bit dim. The LSE economics dept, home of Friedrick Hayek, one of Thatcher's heros?

John Van Reenen, the lead author, is the most respected academic economist in the UK -well he's now at MIT. He is known for careful empirical and econometric work and doesn't do 'forecasts' in case you want to venture down that route.

FYI he was and is opposed to the UK joining the Euro.

What precisely don't you agree with in the analysis at hand. Feel free to explain pal.

Drinking the Kool-Aid again Les? Who has access to the single market?

Who doesn't have access to it?

To help you , this is from the BBC fact check on their web site.

"Any countries that are not subject to trade sanctions can trade with members of the single market."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sweeping generalisations and empty platitudes just make you look a bit dim.

 

John Van Reenen, the lead author, is the most respected academic economist in the UK -well he's now at MIT. He is known for careful empirical and econometric work and doesn't do 'forecasts' in case you want to venture down that route.

 

FYI he was and is opposed to the UK joining the Euro.

 

What precisely don't you agree with in the analysis at hand. Feel free to explain pal.

Notable that the majority of your posts are liberally seasoned with insults to other posters, and written in an arrogant, condescending style. This eradicates their already negligible, cut-and-paste credibility.

Who doesn't have access to it?

 

To help you , this is from the BBC fact check on their web site.

 

"Any countries that are not subject to trade sanctions can trade with members of the single market."

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having access and having free access are very different things, as you know.

Having access and having free access are very different things, as you know.

I was replying to the question "'who has access to the single market"'as you know. Perhaps you could explain the difference to your fellow remoaner , who doesn't seem to understand

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Notable that the majority of your posts are liberally seasoned with insults to other posters, and written in an arrogant, condescending style. This eradicates their already negligible, cut-and-paste credibility.

He's right though, it was a sweeping generalisation that made you look dim and uninformed. The problem for Brexiteers is seeing the world as you want it to be,not as it is. If you engaged with the issues / obstacles and offered solutions the Brexit case would be more credible. Simply denying realities isn't going to attract the majority support you'll need in both Parliament and the ballot box.

I was replying to the question "'who has access to the single market"'as you know. Perhaps you could explain the difference to your fellow remoaner , who doesn't seem to understand

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read the original post that motivated it. You very well know what's being discussed. Or maybe you're coming to the realisation that your merry band of brexiters won't be able to have your cake and eat it. See how far a bit of honesty and courage gets you.

the majority support you'll need in both Parliament and the ballot box.

Already won at the Ballot box last June. Parliament will not be a problem either. Keep dreaming!

Edit

Already won at the Ballot box last June. Parliament will not be a problem either. Keep dreaming!

Bingo. Exactly what I mean.

Read the original post that motivated it. You very well know what's being discussed. Or maybe you're coming to the realisation that your merry band of brexiters won't be able to have your cake and eat it. See how far a bit of honesty and courage gets you.

I don't want to be part of any organisation that describes having some sort of control of who comes into my country as "having our cake and eating it"

I don't see any logical reason why all EU countries shouldn't have their cake and eat it as well.

And yet the actual impact has been nowhere near as big as you rabidly like to tell yourself.

 

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

Dress it up in a big LSE study if you want, but the fact is current levels of net migration are completely unprecedented, we've never seen anything on this scale, so it's odd that you make out that people's concern with it is somehow 'rabidly' irrational. At current levels we're adding a million odd to the population every 3 years, and believe it or not, many people are seeing a housing shortage, stretched services, increased conjestion etc- and are increasingly questioning the benefits to their standard of living and that of their children by carrying on at this rate.

Also I think you're underestimated the scale of what's happening on the continent. I've often been in a minority of British workers at my work place, instead of reading academic studies if you'd talk to many southern Europeans there, you'd maybe appreciate more the situation. They have had the opportunity sucked out of their countries thanks to the Euro zone (and their own politicians greed, granted). And whilst I feel bad for them, many who I've become good friends with, numbers will keep rising, even France's youth unemployment rate is 25% odd. And it will be impossible to create a high wage economy like Australia whilst having an endless supply of cheap available labor coming from the continent. Although i'm sure big business and the elites wouldn't mind that.

I don't want to be part of any organisation that describes having some sort of control of who comes into my country as "having our cake and eating it"

 

I don't see any logical reason why all EU countries shouldn't have their cake and eat it as well.

Exactly

Makes me laugh this " free" access to the single market . It's not free if you have to hand over parts of your sovereignty to join.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

some of the brexiters have a naive view of the world,if they think we are just going to have free trade from the other country's without some trade of,and need to be realistic and putting tariffs up against our European neighbors will not effect them,has anyone involved in manufacturing knows that economics of scales reduce there production costs,so a European market of 450 million against 60 million uk market,they will always be cheaper,hence why our government we had to bribe the likes of nissan etc to stay as they would face !0 % tariff in eu markets without a agreement,and i,ve yet to see productivity and investment to match the world beating economys of the world in the uk,and most of britsh plc is owned by foreign countries who will just downsize their factory's for uk consumation,hence why i don,t see us leaving the single market has it would be a disaster. time to get real i would say,or those who want us out can tell us how we are going to get these great deals and free market access,just look at india they want better acess for their nationals before they will consider giving us a deal and i believe china has got special deal for there citzens.

And yet the actual impact has been nowhere near as big as you rabidly like to tell yourself.

 

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

Quotes a document by a research department partly funded by the EU ...

In addition to this, one of the key contributors is a monnet chair..... you know... those EU paid professors... who's responsibility it is to promote the EU...

Didn't think my old pedigree chum would fall for this 'research'. Tell me who's funding the research and I'll tell you what the probable outcome will be.

No vested interest here. Nope, none at all.

Even you must be able to fathom that that you don't bite the hand that feeds you...

Quotes a document by a research department partly funded by the EU ...

 

In addition to this, one of the key contributors is a monnet chair..... you know... those EU paid professors... who's responsibility it is to promote the EU...

 

Didn't think my old pedigree chum would fall for this 'research'. Tell me who's funding the research and I'll tell you what the probable outcome will be.

 

No vested interest here. Nope, none at all.

 

Even you must be able to fathom that that you don't bite the hand that feeds you...

You really do wear your ignorance like a badge of honour. Not much has changed in 2017, Baldrick.

The ESRC which funds this work is a UK research council, a nongovernmental department body. It is the main funder of social science research in the country. Grants are awarded on a peer review basis, made up of UK academics. Any academic economist or social scientist will at some point in their career be funded by the ESRC -just as any academic will have received funding from one of the six other research councils.

Monnet Chair? Who are you referring to?

That CEP receives 5% of its funding from the EU is again entirely unremarkable. The EU is a funder of the UK research base, one of the primary uses and benefits of the UK's budget contribution. That money is for academic purposes, not consultancy or general funding, fundamentally different activities. There are very strict rules governing how funds are disbursed to ensure academic integrity and independence. Again it may not play to your feverish fantasies but the EU has a strong interest in funding the best research available as it seeks to improve the productivity and competitiveness of its R&D base. The only mistake the CEP has made is that it is a centre of excellence in applied economics. Guilty as charged pal.

But no Baldrick, it's all one big racket: with technocrats and academics on the Horizon 2020 board breaking with instinct, procedure and self-interest and acting venally. All while academics are happy to sell their souls, even though most of their research is mindnumbingly technocratic and a big reason why they've gone into academia is because they value their autonomy over other objectives.

Extending your swivel-eyed logic, Baldrick, you're a drug dealer because the fiver you handed over this morning contained traces of cocaine.

Better stop here: the EU establishment may be listening in on this and controlling us with microwave beams...duck and cover, little kipper.

#followthemoney

 

You really do wear your ignorance like a badge of honour. Not much has changed in 2017, Baldrick.

 

The ESRC which funds this work is a UK research council, a nongovernmental department body. It is the main funder of social science research in the country. Grants are awarded on a peer review basis, made up of UK academics. Any academic economist or social scientist will at some point in their career be funded by the ESRC -just as any academic will have received funding from one of the six other research councils.

 

Monnet Chair? Who are you referring to?

 

That CEP receives 5% of its funding from the EU is again entirely unremarkable. The EU is a funder of the UK research base, one of the primary uses and benefits of the UK's budget contribution. That money is for academic purposes, not consultancy or general funding, fundamentally different activities. There are very strict rules governing how funds are disbursed to ensure academic integrity and independence. Again it may not play to your feverish fantasies but the EU has a strong interest in funding the best research available as it seeks to improve the productivity and competitiveness of its R&D base. The only mistake the CEP has made is that it is a centre of excellence in applied economics. Guilty as charged pal.

 

But no Baldrick, it's all one big racket: with technocrats and academics on the Horizon 2020 board breaking with instinct, procedure and self-interest and acting venally. All while academics are happy to sell their souls, even though most of their research is mindnumbingly technocratic and a big reason why they've gone into academia is because they value their autonomy over other objectives.

 

Extending your swivel-eyed logic, Baldrick, you're a drug dealer because the fiver you handed over this morning contained traces of cocaine.

 

Better stop here: the EU establishment may be listening in on this and controlling us with microwave beams...duck and cover, little kipper.

 

#followthemoney

This gives you some insight into the eye watering amounts spent on promoting the EU and driving EU propaganda.

I suggest you have a proper gander...

https://www.brugesgroup.com/propaganda/54-issues/propaganda/204-propaganda-how-the-eu-uses-education-and-academia-to-sell-integration

Note the LSE gets more than a mention. So lets not pretend that our univeristies provide "independent" research.

No mention of the monnet chair from you. They have a specific brief to promote the EU in a good light. One of the architects of your "independent" and "balanced" report LOL

Exactly

 

Makes me laugh this " free" access to the single market . It's not free if you have to hand over parts of your sovereignty to join.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...and around £200 million a week, give or take.

This gives you some insight into the eye watering amounts spent on promoting the EU and driving EU propaganda.

 

I suggest you have a proper gander...

 

https://www.brugesgroup.com/propaganda/54-issues/propaganda/204-propaganda-how-the-eu-uses-education-and-academia-to-sell-integration

 

Note the LSE gets more than a mention. So lets not pretend that our univeristies provide "independent" research.

 

No mention of the monnet chair from you. They have a specific brief to promote the EU in a good light. One of the architects of your "independent" and "balanced" report LOL

Some some dull factoids that EU funds academic research? How earth-shattering. To claim anything else is simply fraudulent - indeed the piece provides zero evidence of politicised research (never mind any analysis of the ERC which operates autonomously and whose grants are allocated without predetermined priorities, save to support investigator-led research at the scientific frontier).

Rinse and repeat:

"The Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) is a politically independent Research Centre at the London School of Economics. The CEP has no institutional views, only those of its individual researchers. Professor John Van Reenen, who was CEP's director from 2003 to the summer of 2016, did not (and does not) support joining the Euro. CEP's Brexit work is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. As a whole the CEP, receives less than 5% of its funding from the European Union. The EU funding is from the European Research Council for academic projects and not for general funding or consultancy".

Baldrick, you might ask yourself whether it's sensible to cite a virulently anti-EU source in the context of the role of bias. Keep that in mind the next time you decide to make a massive tit of yourself.

As for your general wellbeing and penchant for conspiracies, this might help pal.

[video=youtube_share;NZR64EF3OpA]

PS: what is this reference to the Monnet Chair, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

"The CEP has no institutional views, only those of its individual researchers. Professor John Van Reenen, who was CEP's director from 2003 to the summer of 2016, did not (and does not) support joining the Euro. ".

Is it not possible to not support joining the Euro, but, at the same time not wish to leave the European Union?

Those two things are not the same as I'm sure Greece & Spain can confirm...

Certainly a quick glance at the Professor's articles before the vote would suggest he was very much aligned to remaining a part of the EU. Since the CEP does not have any institutional views, only those of its members, then surely the views of the Director must be taken into account! It's like saying that Virgin as an institution does not have any views - which it doesn't as it's a company! - but anyone who thinks the company's direction and political influence is not intrinsically linked to Richard Branson and his own personal opinions, would have to be dafter than a brush!

Is it not possible to not support joining the Euro, but, at the same time not wish to leave the European Union?

 

Er, not only is it it possible, it's the position taken by the vast majority of Remain voters, including me and Gordon Brown.

Some some dull factoids that EU funds academic research? How earth-shattering. To claim anything else is simply fraudulent - indeed the piece provides zero evidence of politicised research (never mind any analysis of the ERC which operates autonomously and whose grants are allocated without predetermined priorities, save to support investigator-led "research" at the scientific frontier).

 

Rinse and repeat:

 

"The Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) is a politically independent Research Centre at the London School of Economics. The CEP has no institutional views, only those of its individual researchers. Professor John Van Reenen, who was CEP's director from 2003 to the summer of 2016, did not (and does not) support joining the Euro. CEP's Brexit work is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. As a whole the CEP, receives less than 5% of its funding from the European Union. The EU funding is from the European Research Council for academic projects and not for general funding or consultancy".

 

Baldrick, you might ask yourself whether it's sensible to cite a virulently anti-EU source in the context of the role of bias. Keep that in mind the next time you decide to make a massive tit of yourself.

 

As for your general wellbeing and penchant for conspiracies, this might help pal.

 

[video=youtube_share;NZR64EF3OpA]

 

PS: what is this reference to the Monnet Chair, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I would be interested to see if others think that the article is just dull factoids. It certainly alludes to the fact that there is institutionalised brainwashing going on.

Yes the article has a political slant, but no more than you would expect if you had an ex-monnet chair like gianmarco ottaviano on the ""research"" team.

Or is it a case that you're allowed to post politically biased articles and I am not???

Im surprised you've not heard of monnet chairs or the jean monnet programme. An EU funded institutionalised brainwashing programme that even Goebbels would have been proud of.

http://www.jean-monnet.ch/en/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet_Programme

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet_Foundation_for_Europe

I'm a pragmatist. Somewhere down the line, the EU member states that have the most to lose by making our access to the single market difficult, will soon realise that it is too costly to them in terms of falling exports and the resultant loss of jobs. Most other countries outside of the EU that have access to the single market don't have to pay for it, nor do they have to accept freedom of movement of peoples, so why should we? We will benefit by leaving the customs union in order that we will be free to arrange our own trade deals with the rest of the World.

 

What would you propose, bearing in mind that we will be leaving the EU?

• I see no mandate in existence that would allow government to deliberately damage our economy, and therefore the welfare of the many millions of your fellow citizens it supports. The possibility of such a (irrational) mandate being achieved was sabotaged by the venal and deeply dishonest manner 'Vote Leave' chose to conduct themselves during last year's referendum campaign. Had the British people been honestly made aware of the adverse economic consequences they would likely face in the event of our estrangement from the EU Single Market, then I believe the referendum outcome may well have been reversed. Indeed, this seems highly likely I think.

• The notion that we can somehow mitigate the damage to our trading economy that will inevitably follow the introduction of a new tariff regime with the EU, by forming new trade deals with more distant nations, is dangerously speculative at best, illusionary at worse.

• As our economy surely requires a good degree of access to the EU Single Market - still nearly HALF our total exports - some kind of 'Norway' or 'Switzerland' style associate relationship with the EU will have to be agreed. I see no realistic alternative to this given the economic reality of our situation. The exact terms of this arrangement would obviously be subject to negotiation. However, it is quite clear that some manner of compromise over the key immigration issue will have to be agreed with the EU27.

• I suspect that at around half the nation would broadly agree with the above sentiments. So pressing ahead with the hard-line policy you and your fellow euro-sceptics would doubtless favour, while ignoring every other point of view, risks ripping this nation asunder. I put it to you that this would be a bad thing would it not?

Is it not possible to not support joining the Euro, but, at the same time not wish to leave the European Union?

 

Those two things are not the same as I'm sure Greece & Spain can confirm...

 

Certainly a quick glance at the Professor's articles before the vote would suggest he was very much aligned to remaining a part of the EU. Since the CEP does not have any institutional views, only those of its members, then surely the views of the Director must be taken into account! It's like saying that Virgin as an institution does not have any views - which it doesn't as it's a company! - but anyone who thinks the company's direction and political influence is not intrinsically linked to Richard Branson and his own personal opinions, would have to be dafter than a brush!

Of course, it's possible.

Which articles are you referring to? Van Reenen's main interest is industrial economics. He is an empiricist: if he comes to the conclusion that immigration has not had a major effect, that conclusion is based on his careful analysis and interpretation of the evidence, not some prior political position.

The Brexiter ruse is to conflate the two which is both dangerous and depressing. The worst accusation you can level at an applied economist is bias -and anyone found to be fiddling the numbers or not establishing the robustness of their methods will not survive very long the profession. That's what acadenics care about. The system is not perfect - peer review can lead to subtle pressures to conform. But this is small fry compared to the f**kwit claims being made on this thread.

I would be interested to see if others think that the article is just dull factoids. It certainly alludes to the fact that there is institutionalised brainwashing going on.

 

Yes the article has a political slant, but no more than you would expect if you had an ex-monnet chair like gianmarco ottaviano on the ""research"" team.

 

Or is it a case that you're allowed to post politically biased articles and I am not???

 

Im surprised you've not heard of monnet chairs or the jean monnet programme. An EU funded institutionalised brainwashing programme that even Goebbels would have been proud of.

 

http://www.jean-monnet.ch/en/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet_Programme

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet_Foundation_for_Europe

As far as I can see Ottaviano has never held a Monnet chair. All I see from his CV is that he held a short Monnet fellowship early in his academic career concurrently with other positions. But that appears it. I might be wrong; if so do clarify.

If not, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain little kipper: fellows receive funding based on principles of academic autonomy to research areas related to European integration, regulation, trade. Care to explain how this qualifies as advocacy,

Your jumble of links makes little sense. The Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe has nothing to do with these research initiatives (it's not even an official initiative as far as I can tell). Jean Monnet: glad you can read as far as that.

This topic is getting too big for you Baldrick. Suffice to say but your own academic shortcomings and misunderstandings are starting to get the better of you.