shurlock

How old are you glasgow? 50?

Don't be a moron Les.

Charlie - should we sell Long in the summer?

I took it to mean disabled and older fans more generally. FWIW I sit in the top row in Itchen North precisely to avoid blocking someone's view, even though it's more of a stander's stand.

How does that work pal?

Exactly. The fact is many of our fans are bumpkins.

"National sovereignty is not inviolable, and it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all men in all the lands finding their way home together." #takebackcontrol

You called Les? Whatever happened to shatlock...

Out of the kippers on here, he does come across as the most insecure, that's for sure.

Why are they mere opinions? We're not talking about forecasts, we're talking about empirical evidence, based on observed changes. There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't infer too much from the 'vote' - for starters can individuals separate out the impact of immigration on wages from other factors -technological and industrial change, import competition, the decline of union power, welfare cuts and historically low levels of social mobility? Never mind that people didn't just vote leave because of immigration and wages.

The specific chart Trident has put up shows that the pound has barely moved in % terms against the euro, so the chart alone tells very little (of course, Trident wouldn't know either way as he's innumerate). In terms of very recent movements, am sure that markets have welcomed ithe short-term increase in political certainty that has come with the vote -and has little to do with the anticipation of higher interest rates.

And where's the evidence that the adverse effects on wages have been large?

Glad to see you're still smarting from the egg on your face from a few weeks ago :lol: I understand Trident it was both embarrassing and incompetent.

He literally looks like he's come off the street and hasn't had time to put out his cigarette.

For me, the haircut is a big no. Another Shoreditch Samurai that will end in tears.

And where does the money you save from employing Poles go? Perhaps it means the company can afford to give another British employee a pay rise? Perhaps its reinvested in other parts of the business that increase demand for British labour? Perhaps its passed onto consumers in the form of lower prices and that surplus is spent on other goods and services that hire British labour? Perhaps it means extra profits that are distributed to shareholders who will either save and invest that money (perhaps in a company down the road that hires British labour) or spend it on consumption that again may end up in a Brit's pocket and so on and so forth. Brexiters have a very simple, zero-sum understanding of the economy that doesn't correspond to reality. Of course all this assumes that immigration has an adverse impact on wages and employment for those UK born who are in direct competition with foreign workers. The evidence, however, suggests the effects are extremely small. Sorry pal but them's the facts.

That's possible Baldrick. On the other hand, we know higher income groups tended to vote remain -and there is a strong association between income and education, not just level of education but also quality (quality understood in terms of institution and field of study). As such CEC's point stands. #doublefirstuniversityoflife

Feeling fresh and relaxed after your ban pal? I have a soft spot for Steven Davis and think Ryan Bertrand is more grounded than you'd expect.

Keep fighting the good fight, little kipper.

Charlie and speed dont mix.

No Les, you were shown up again for not understanding what you read. The point is that those factors PWC identifies as benefiting the UK economy are independent of Brexit -and the UK would have also benefited from them within the EU. It helps to read Les rather than jumping on clickbait headings, especially where the work undercuts your argument. Its important to be clear about PWC's methodology: it largely sidesteps the impact of Brexit. This is understandable as it doesn't lend itself to the simple Solow-Swan model it uses for this exercise (for instance, it excludes the impact of trade and investment flows). PWC acknowledges Brexit only to the extent that it imposes a medium-term penalty on UK GDP growth through to 2020; beyond that, PWC doesnt consider whether -for good or bad- Brexit will affect those variables that are predictive of growth in its model i.e. demographics, education, capital investment, technological progress. In other words, prospects for UK GDP (ppp terms) under Brexit and Remain scenarios are exactly the same in PWC's forecasts -save that under the Brexit scenario, there is a medium-term drag on growth and under the Remain scenario there isn't one. The conclusion from PWC's forecasts is crystal-clear: the UK is worse off for leaving the EU than if it remained inside it. Feel free to rubbish the forecast and its realism; but dont use it to support your position. It doesn't. As to the sunny uplands of global trade, you are on your own here - PWC doesn't wade into this debate. Its noticeable that you are unable to respond to articles or arguments that attempt to inject a bit of realism and complexity into discussions. Anecdotes from the University of Life wont cut it pal.

Going to miss the final according to the UI.

Ok Les So you've cited a report that is largely irrelevant to the debate that has dominated this thread -and at any rate is of suspect reliability. Glad I have the permission to disregard it Now to your argument rather than PWC's (indeed their forecasts barely model the impact of Brexit!) about all the gains waiting from trading more with the rest of the world, I've stated before I think you're wildly optimistic. You must be having another senior's moment if you think I've argued any different. For refreshers, I posted this: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/01/on-brexit-over-optimism.html Feel free to point out where this errs: http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/will-new-trade-deals-soften-blow-hard-brexit#.WJoAPpbfXCQ This on the contradictions at the heart of a UK-US deal: https://www.ft.com/content/508826d4-e15d-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb Finally if you think demographics are about opening up to a few high-skilled migrants at the margins, you need to do some reading.

Well done Les for wasting so much time and effort on so much guff. A report paints a bright future for the country's prospects outside the EU is not the same as saying that the country's prospects will be brighter outside the EU. In relative terms, the UK may actually be worse off which goes to the heart of the debate on this thread. If you can show me where in the report PWC poses and answers that counterfactual, then kudos to you Les. I'll let you off the fact that 30 year forecasts are notoriously unreliable given that many on the Remain side would uncritically wheel out similar forecasts if it helped their case. If you can't, then frankly your giddy posting today has been redundant - and basically boils down to a regurgitation of your usual prejudices, blindspots and leaps of faith.

The UK has the third most flexible labour market in the OECD, as measured by its authoritative strictness of employment legislation index. As a matter of fact, labour market flexibility is only partly determined by employment protection legislation -see the US which has the weakest employment protection in the OECD yet declining labour market flexibility. Never mind that the empirical relationship between employment protection and economic outcomes is not clearcut, with some evidence suggesting some degree of protection may encourage investments in human capital and innovation. I can't see them - so please do point me to the relevant parts of the PWC report forecasting that overall trade values and volumes will be greater under Brexit than if the UK remained in the EU. And more importantly its forecast that growth rates will be faster under Brexit than if the UK remained in the EU. Cheers Baldrick.