Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[badgerx16]

After all, whatever we agree with the EU, it will not include the uncontrolled movement of peoples, the payment of vast sums of money to them, or the subjugation of our laws to the ECJ.

 

Currently all this represents is a wish-list.

[moonraker]

Having read much of the white paper it is little more than the unconvincing Brexit optimism we have been asailed with for years. I hope that MPs do their job and scrutinise every word, it is very poor document.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The bloke voted in favor of the referendum, so that would therefore imply he would vote to implement the outcome.

 

It's hilarious to see the likes of Clegg and Farron trying to make their position look principled, who both voted for the referendum presuming they'd win and put the issue to bed, but are now throwing the toys out 'cos they didn't. The only MPs who are logically entitled to try and block brexit are those who opposed the actual referendum in parliament, that's a fair enough position.

 

The blokes a pinko old duffer , but Ken Clarke has taken a principled stand. He voted against the referendum, campaigned for remain and represents a constituency that voted remain. As you say there are plenty who voted for a referendum who are now trying to move the goal posts . The time for little Timmy, Cleggy and other remoaners to raise points about the process was when the referendum act was going through parliament, not after they lost the vote.

 

However take comfort from the fact that the remoaners attitude has boxed May into a corner and ensured there's no fudge. It'll be much more of a UKIP Brexit than it would have been had they accepted the result and worked with May on a "fix". When the glorious day comes that we leave the sinking ship behind I'll be raising a glass of Bishops Tipple to Clegg, Cameron, Osborne, Little Timmy, Soubry, Abbott, Carny and Steptoe because without their sheer incompetence and arrogance this would never have happened .

[Johnny Bognor]

Kippers aren't known for realism or hardheaded practicalities; but most would admit that there are pressures on the UK to conclude new deals with non-EU countries to replace the lost trade from leaving the single market. After all, whatever the UK agrees with the EU is unlikely to be as friendly as the benefits it currently enjoys as a member of the single market.

 

Can you remind me how much our trade with EU countries has increased since joining the single market?

 

It's important, because it may give some indication as to how much we might trade we might "lose" if we leave.

 

Thanks

Baldrick

[Guided Missile]

Can you remind me how much our trade with EU countries has increased since joining the single market?

 

It's important, because it may give some indication as to how much we might trade we might "lose" if we leave.

 

Thanks

Baldrick

 

I think this guy can help:

 

Michael Burrage is a sociologist by training, was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has been a lecturer at the London School of Economics and at the Institute of United States Studies, specialising in the comparative analysis of industrial enterprise and professional institutions. He has been a research fellow at Harvard,at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study, Uppsala, at the Free University of Berlin, and at the Center for Higher Education Studies and the Institute of Government of the University of California,Berkeley. He has also been British Council lecturer at the University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and on several occasions a visiting professor in Japan, at the universities of Kyoto, Hokkaido and Kansai and at Hosei University in Tokyo.He has written articles in American, European and Japanese sociological journals, conducted a comparative study of telephone usage in Tokyo, Manhattan, Paris and London for NTT, and a study of British entrepreneurs for Ernst & Young. His publications include Revolution and the Making of the Contemporary Legal Profession:England, France and the United States (OUP, 2006) and Class Formation,Civil Society and the State: A comparative analysis of Russia, France, the United States and England (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008 ) He edited Martin Trow: Twentieth-century higher education: from elite to mass to universal (Johns Hopkins, 2010).

 

According to Michael Burrage, in the 13 years before Britain joined the then European Economic Community, British exports to the 11 core states saw growth of 131 per cent. Exports also grew by 136 per cent between 1973 and 1993 as the union worked together on the creation of a Common Market system. But the value of UK exports to the same 11 economies has only risen by 2.5 per cent in the last 23 years since the creation of the single market.

 

I now expect ad hominem attacks on this author, together with any groups to which he is affiliated, rather than any evidence to the contrary.

 

 

[Turkish]

I see Brexit has left us short of courgettes and lettuces FFS

[Window Cleaner]

I see Brexit has left us short of courgettes and lettuces FFS

 

I think it's more a case of the rain in Spain falling mainly in the plain. Although why Britain needs Spanish greens kind of escapes me.

[Guided Missile]

I see Brexit has left us short of courgettes and lettuces FFS

That's 2 of my 5 a day gone. I'll just have to replace them with two pints of IPA. UK beer is yet to be affected by Brexit, according to Farage, as he's rarely seen without a glass in his hand. I pity the salad eating metropolitan elite, though. They'll sure to be picketing Tesco's over the weekend.

[shurlock]

I think this guy can help:

 

 

 

According to Michael Burrage, in the 13 years before Britain joined the then European Economic Community, British exports to the 11 core states saw growth of 131 per cent. Exports also grew by 136 per cent between 1973 and 1993 as the union worked together on the creation of a Common Market system. But the value of UK exports to the same 11 economies has only risen by 2.5 per cent in the last 23 years since the creation of the single market.

 

I now expect ad hominem attacks on this author, together with any groups to which he is affiliated, rather than any evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

Trident - even by your ignorant standards, this is pathetic.

 

Export growth is a dubious proxy for the benefits of trade liberalisation: export growth may be fast but only because it is starting from a low base. If it was a yardstick, Liechtenstein would be the UK's most important partner with whom trade grew nearly 40% between 2005 and 2014. The figures also appear to exclude services - the UK's main source of comparative advantage, another red flag. Taken together they say nothing about the volume of trade in both goods and services which is far more consequential for income levels and living standards.

 

Even if export growth was the right metric (it isnt), comparing two periods is dubious without proper controls: there maybe other factors -independent of trade liberalisation that are driving results -for instance differences in economic growth rates or changes in sector mix. Thus the period 1950-1973 was seen as a golden period of European capitalism versus other time periods as countries had plenty scope for 'catchup' through postwar reconstruction, technology transfer and the shift of labour out of agriculture. These one-off benefits boosted economic growth -and thus trade; however they were not directly the result of trade liberalisation. Unless you can separate these effects and establish a proper counterfactual, statements about the impact of different trade relationships over time are going to be deeply flawed.

 

Estimates of the impact of trade liberalisation also have to take into account other benefits such as FDI and productivity gains through increased competition. Of course benefits should be assessed alongside costs such as 'membership fee’ to EU required in terms of the net budgetary contribution and net costs of regulation.

 

No ad hominem attack required (after all it is a kipper tactic on here). I'm just embarrassed that you felt you were making a contribution -and felt that including someone's bio strengthened your case.

 

Bless you, little kipper

 

Edited 3 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Guided Missile]

I found this part of Professor Burrage's Paper quite interesting and backs up what I've suspected about the patronising political elite in this country for a while :

 

Since 1970, the EC has concluded 37 agreements, most of them with small economies, some multi-country. The aggregate GDP in 2015 of the 55 countries with an EU agreement in force in January 2014 is $7.7tn.

 

• By contrast the aggregate GDP of all the countries with which Chile had agreements in force is $58.3tn, Korea’s totalled $40.8tn, Singapore’s $38.7tn and Switzerland’s $39.8tn. However, the agreements of these four countries include their agreements with the EU, which has a GDP of $16.7tn.

• About 90 per cent of the agreements of these four smaller, independent countries include services, whereas only 68 per cent of the EC’s trade agreements do so.

• The EC has therefore opened services markets of just $4.8tn to UK exporters, whereas the Swiss have opened markets of $35tn, the Singaporeans of $37.2tn, the Koreans of $40tn and Chileans of $55.4tn. However, we do not know if the EC agreements secured better terms than these independent countries, since the scope of these agreements has never been compared in detail.

• Analysis of the growth of UK exports of goods before and after EC agreements have come into force, for at least five years, shows that in most cases (10 out of 15) the post-agreement growth of UK exports has fallen. The five countries where thepost-agreement growth of UK exports rose were Turkey, Chile, Lebanon, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. These therefore are the clear success stories of 42 years of EC negotiation on the UK’s behalf. Their total GDP in 2015 was $1.1tn, which is significantly less than the $1.5tn GDP of Australia with which the EC has yet to negotiate an agreement.

• By contrast most of Switzerland’s agreements (11 out of 15), most of Singapore’s (eight out of 12) and most of Korea’s (four out of five) have been followed by an increase in the rate of growth of their exports to the partner countries. Most Chilean agreements have been followed by a decline in the growth of their exports, though they differ from the British in that most of their pre-agreement rates of growth to these 13 countries were unsustainably high.

 

 

These results throw serious doubt on CBI and business claims that ceding responsibility for trade agreements to the EC has benefited UK exports. None of their submissions to the government make comparisons with the trade agreements of any independent countries, and are empty assertions of a kind that would be dismissed scathingly, or perhaps as a joke, by the marketing departments of every CBI member firm.

Both OECD and UN Comtrade data show that, by surrendering the right to conduct its own trade negotiations, the UK has sacrificed many years of freer trade for its exporters of both goods and services. An attempt is made to rough count the still-mounting value of these lost years of freer trade by supposing that an independent UK negotiating its own agreements had kept pace with Switzerland or Singapore. Any attempt to calculate the benefits of

the Single Market should also include these substantial and continuing losses.

 

 

The second part of the investigation tries to answer the question that the minister raised but failed to answer satisfactorily: what would have happened if the Single Market programme had never been created? It does this by extending the exponential trendlines of the growth of exports of goods over the Common Market years 1973-1992 through the Single Market years 1993-2012. When these exponential trendlines are compared with the real rate of the growth of exports over these same two decades of the Single Market, they show that:

 

 

• Exports of goods of the 12 founder members of the Single Market to each other have been 14.6 per cent lower than they would have been had they continued to grow exactly as they had done under the Common Market, and are therefore nowhere near the minister’s doubling claim.

• UK exports of goods to the other 11 founder members have been 22.3 per cent lower, while to other OECD countries only 10.9 per cent lower.

• Exports of non-member OECD countries to the EU were just 2.05 per cent lower, and have therefore performed almost as well as they did in the Common Market years.

SUMMARY

• Thus the UK’s exports have grown and benefited least during the Single Market, while those of non-member OECD countries have grown and benefited most.

• There is no evidence that the Single Market programme has helped the exports of the UK or other founder member countries to other OECD countries.

 

 

If the analysis is taken only to the eve of the financial crisis of 2008, both EU members as a whole and the UK alone perform rather better, though still not as well as in the Common Market decades, and only the exports of non-member countries to the EU exceed their growth during the Common Market decades. Hence the paradox of the Single Market: in terms of the growth of exports of goods, non-member countries have been its main beneficiaries, and still more paradoxically, those non-members that have not had any trade agreements with the EU – Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States – have benefited more than those that have: Turkey,

Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. Data on services exports is limited and uneven. The EC’s preferred measure of integration of the Single Market – the proportions of intra and extra-EU exports as a percentage of GDP – shows that the degree of integration is extremely low, and has been sinking slowly but continuously since 2007, despite the repeated calls of successive British prime ministers that it be extended.

Over the years 2002-2012, the extra-EU exports of services of 11 of the 12 founder members, and in particular those of the UK, have grown faster than their intra-EU exports. France is the sole exception.

These figures throw doubt on the very existence of an EU single market in services, which is distinguished from other markets by providing greater opportunities for trade amongst its members. To find out whether membership of the EU confers any advantage in services trade, the growth rates of the services exports of 20 member countries to other EU members between 2004 and 2012 were compared with those of 19 non-member countries. There is no statistically significant difference between them. By this measure, therefore, the advantages of members and the disadvantages of nonmembers in the ‘single market’ in services are both illusions. Indeed, given that non-member countries pay nothing for exporting to the Single Market, other than the tariff and trade costs of individual exporters, they might reasonably be said to have benefited more from it than its own member countries.

 

 

These findings, along with evidence that Single Market members have suffered from distinctively high and severe unemployment compared with independent OECD countries, that their GDP and productivity have grown more slowly, and that the exports of 15 non-member countries to the rest of the EU have grown more rapidly than those of the UK, demonstrate that the image of the Single Market as the ‘crown jewel’ of the EU which has delivered ‘substantial economic benefits’ to the UK is a myth.

 

 

This myth seems to have originated in the efforts of the political elite of the early 1970s to convince the British people that entering the Common Market was in their best economic interest.

[Jonnyboy]

I found this part of Professor Burrage's Paper quite interesting and backs up what I've suspected about the patronising political elite in this country for a while :

 

Don't you know, all Professors are part of the political elite, duh.

[Goatboy]

Don't you know, all Professors are part of the political elite, duh.

 

What about Professors Green and Griff?

[shurlock]

Edit

[shurlock]

Don't you know, all Professors are part of the political elite, duh.

 

Except the no-mark sociologists that GM aka Trident cites.

Edited 3 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Goatboy]

Don't you know, all Professors are part of the political elite, duh.

 

 

He's just a carved wooden bookend in the shape of a woodpecker.

[Wade Garrett]

I always wondered what Cloud Cuckoo Land was like, Brexit and the election of Trump have satisfied my curiosity and it is not a good land. Only cuckoo's are welcome, which thankfully means eventually they will die out, they are not capable of actually existing on their own they need other species to do the hard work for them but don’t want any contact with or responsibility for them. They are very aggressive when challenged about their lifestyle but when real courage is needed they disappear faster than a Bojo promise. The cuckoo is easily identified, by its plaintiff cry of ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and its colourful plumage that is very similar to the emperors new clothes, based as it is on conceited illusions. Thankfully despite fewer sightings of many more sociable, hospitable and hard working species their numbers are actually very strong and will in time knock the selfish cuckoo from its perch.

 

It's called democracy. If you don't like it, try China or Russia.

[Wes Tender]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/city-red-faces-on-brexit-fears-dtd5szmg2

 

Even economic "experts" can get it wrong sometimes. But they were making forecasts (guesses) based on criteria that was fluid, capable of being influenced by several factors which were beyond their control. They would have been better served by predicting a range of possibilities ranging from a best case scenario to a worst case one, but it suited their project fear agenda to go for the bleaker picture following our vote to leave the EU and now their credibility has taken a knock.

[Wes Tender]

25 years ago today we signed the Maastricht Treaty and began our journey along the road to a Federal United States of Europe. As the electorate was not given the opportunity to vote on this major change to the original Treaty we had signed to join the Common Market, it marks the time that Eurosceptic dissent began to grow in the Conservative and Labour Parties and also resulted in the formation of the fledgeling UKIP Party.

 

It has taken a long time to arrive at the stage where the demands for a referendum on our membership of the EU had become unavoidable, but happily we are now well on the way to regaining control of our own destiny. Just to inject a note of optimism into our future prospects, PwC follow the Bank of England in revising their forecasts from the doom and gloom to the cautiously optimistic.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/uk-g7-economy-trade-pwc-brexit-us

 

I have naturally been sceptical of future economic forecasts, but had expressed the opinion that after a short-term reverse, we would prosper from bilateral trade deals with the emerging World economic powers. PwC in conjunction with the CBI leading up to the referendum was a major player in project fear and now seems to be in the process of a volte-face. For those like Chapel End Charlie who hung on every word uttered by these so-called economic experts and bleated about how we Brexiteers were ruining the futures of your children and grandchildren, it appears that there is the possibility that we might be responsible for actually improving their future prospects.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

^ This from the man who told this forum it was best to wait and see what happens before forming conclusions not so very long ago

 

Two years before we have even left the EU the note of triumph is grossly premature at best - entirely wrong at worst. For the record, the latest official forecast still shows this economy growing at a somewhat lower rate this year compared to that which was predicted before the referendum. The GDP growth forecast for 2018 by the way has hardly changed to this day - i.e. leaving the Single Market looks set to make us all poorer than we might otherwise have been.

 

But the world is a imperfect place and as the future has yet to occur (in the conventional concept of 'linear time' anyway) any form of forecast can therefore be proved to be inaccurate - from tomorrow's weather to economic performance years in the future. But when the professionals tell me it is going to rain tomorrow then I find it wise to wear a coat. In a similar way when the Bank of England tells me that leaving the EU will imperil our economic welfare then I make no apology whatsoever of heeding that warning. What I wonder is the realistic alternative to taking professional advice ... listening only to your own prejudices I suppose. That approach may suit some on here, but for me this attitude has the unmistakable smack of arrogance about it.

 

Here's some fun - the latest research confirms earlier data showing that the average 'Leave' voter in last years referendum was older, whiter, and less educated than those who voted to remain. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

[Weston Super Saint]

 

Two years before we have even left the EU the note of triumph is grossly premature at best - entirely wrong at worst. For the record, the latest official forecast still shows this economy growing at a somewhat lower rate this year compared to that which was predicted before the referendum. The GDP growth forecast for 2018 by the way has hardly changed to this day - i.e. leaving the Single Market looks set to make us all poorer than we might otherwise have been.

 

As you point out, we are not going to be leaving the EU for another 2 years - i.e. March 2019 at the earliest. Surely then, the GDP forecast for 2018 is for a time when we will still be IN the EU? Doesn't that mean that by not leaving the Single Market by 2018, we will be poorer than we might otherwise have been?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

As you point out, we are not going to be leaving the EU for another 2 years - i.e. March 2019 at the earliest. Surely then, the GDP forecast for 2018 is for a time when we will still be IN the EU? Doesn't that mean that by not leaving the Single Market by 2018, we will be poorer than we might otherwise have been?

 

No - I was comparing pre and post referendum forecasts. Although the main impact of leaving the EU will probably occur when and after that seismic event occurs, in the meantime the economy will be adversely effected by the high degree of economic uncertainty we face. Ask any investor or businessman what they most dislike and I suppose that 'uncertainty' will be pretty high on the list.

[Wes Tender]

Charles, where in my post above have I changed my view that "wait and see" was the best policy?

 

Thanks for reminding everybody that you were one of the main cheerleaders for taking the dire forecasts of the so-called experts as being the gospel truth, whereas I took the more measured approach that as many of the same people had been wrong about whether we should have joined the Euro Zone, it would be wise to take their forecasts on the EU with a degree of cynicism.

 

The irony doesn't register with you at all that you were prepared to be so adamant that the dire economic forecasts (put out even before the referendum was held) had credibility because of who it was that was making them. Now that over seven months have passed since the referendum, you don't have the humility to admit that you were wrong to have placed so much store in what they forecast, even though they have tacitly admitted that they were over-pessimistic. You were prepared to take the word of the current Bank of England governor over his predecessor's view, those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer pre-referendum over a predecessor of his. I suppose that it suited you to follow the opinions that best suited your prejudices.

 

And then follows the bigger irony, the accusation that a cynical approach taken to ignore those forecasts was arrogant, followed by the ultimate arrogance typical of the Remoaners, that everybody who voted to leave must be senile or thick. This is old hat from the time of the referendum itself, churned up once more by the biased BBC. Most of the MPs have accepted that as a majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU, they will abide by their wishes. Quite why the Beeb can't seem to get their heads around that concept is beyond me, but not unexpected.

[shurlock]

25 years ago today we signed the Maastricht Treaty and began our journey along the road to a Federal United States of Europe. As the electorate was not given the opportunity to vote on this major change to the original Treaty we had signed to join the Common Market, it marks the time that Eurosceptic dissent began to grow in the Conservative and Labour Parties and also resulted in the formation of the fledgeling UKIP Party.

 

It has taken a long time to arrive at the stage where the demands for a referendum on our membership of the EU had become unavoidable, but happily we are now well on the way to regaining control of our own destiny. Just to inject a note of optimism into our future prospects, PwC follow the Bank of England in revising their forecasts from the doom and gloom to the cautiously optimistic.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/uk-g7-economy-trade-pwc-brexit-us

 

I have naturally been sceptical of future economic forecasts, but had expressed the opinion that after a short-term reverse, we would prosper from bilateral trade deals with the emerging World economic powers. PwC in conjunction with the CBI leading up to the referendum was a major player in project fear and now seems to be in the process of a volte-face. For those like Chapel End Charlie who hung on every word uttered by these so-called economic experts and bleated about how we Brexiteers were ruining the futures of your children and grandchildren, it appears that there is the possibility that we might be responsible for actually improving their future prospects.

 

Les, my old mucker, I hope your incontinence pads are stronger than your powers of comprehension

 

The article doesn't state the Brexit will CAUSE the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 by 2050; rather it attributes future superior performance to factors unrelated to Brexit, namely the UK's demographic advantages and flexible labour and product markets. The UK would also benefit from these as a member of the EU. Indeed it is possible that the UK might perform even better than the forecast in these circumstances. After all the aforementioned advantages that the UK enjoys are partly built on EU membership -for instance the demographic tailwinds provided by immigration and freedom of movement.

 

Rather the article suggests Brexit poses downside risks: that flexible labour markets and favourable demographics won't be blessings if the UK can't establish new trade and investment relationships to offset probable weaker trade links with the EU -and that of course is an entirely self-inflicted challenge.

Edited 7 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

Les, my old mucker, I hope your incontinence pads are stronger than your powers of comprehension

 

The article doesn't state the Brexit will CAUSE the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 by 2050; rather it attributes future superior performance to factors unrelated to Brexit, namely the UK's demographic advantages and flexible labour and product markets. The UK would also benefit from these as a member of the EU. Indeed it is possible that the UK might perform even better than the forecast in these circumstances. After all the aforementioned advantages that the UK enjoys are partly built on EU membership -for instance the demographic tailwinds provided by immigration and freedom of movement.

 

Have to disagree there, me old pedigree chum.

 

Increasing employment regulation from the EU has already tied the hands of businesses in the EU and there is no reason for this not to continue. Being liberated from the EU, means that we can maintain and create an even more flexible economy. There is also a significant weight applied to the trade deals that we will be able to do going forward. Both these points only come into play by leaving the EU, therefore the bigger upsides in the report are attributable to Brexit.

[Guided Missile]

Have to disagree there, me old pedigree chum.

 

Increasing employment regulation from the EU has already tied the hands of businesses in the EU and there is no reason for this not to continue. Being liberated from the EU, means that we can maintain and create an even more flexible economy. There is also a significant weight applied to the trade deals that we will be able to do going forward. Both these points only come into play by leaving the EU, therefore the bigger upsides in the report are attributable to Brexit.

I love how all the experts are quick to change the tune that the leave posters were dancing to, before the referendum. This report by PWC is worth a read.

 

So to recap.

 

Before:

 

Leaving the European Union would cause a serious shock to the UK economy that could lead to 950,000 job losses and leave the average household £3,700 worse off by 2020, a report commissioned by the CBI business lobby group has warned. In a stark warning, an analysis conducted by accountancy firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers for the CBI said that Brexit could cost the UK economy £100bn – the equivalent of 5% of GDP – by 2020 and would cause long-lasting economic damage from which it would never recover.

 

After:

 

Consultants PwC say the UK economy will not escape entirely unscathed from the decision to leave the bloc and that it will dampen growth prospects in the short term. But the brunt of the impact would be felt by 2020 and in the years that follow the UK would outperform its peers thanks to its relatively large working age population and its flexible economy.

 

All these piles of steaming turds, left by the overpaid "experts", explain why people who aren't bright enough to do a proper science degree , do accountancy instead. What it doesn't explain is why the sheep on this site still poke every new piece of cr@p they deposit with a stick and talk about it on here. We are leaving, guys and as long as we don't rely on accountants who are bad at starting and growing new businesses, we will be fine.

[shurlock]

Have to disagree there, me old pedigree chum.

 

Increasing employment regulation from the EU has already tied the hands of businesses in the EU and there is no reason for this not to continue. Being liberated from the EU, means that we can maintain and create an even more flexible economy. There is also a significant weight applied to the trade deals that we will be able to do going forward. Both these points only come into play by leaving the EU, therefore the bigger upsides in the report are attributable to Brexit.

 

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.

Edited 7 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Les, my old mucker, I hope your incontinence pads are stronger than your powers of comprehension

 

The article doesn't state the Brexit will CAUSE the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 by 2050; rather it attributes future superior performance to factors unrelated to Brexit, namely the UK's demographic advantages and flexible labour and product markets. These would have existed even if the UK was a member of the EU. Indeed it is possible that the UK might have performed even better in these circumstances. After all the advantages that the UK enjoys are built partly on EU membership -for instance the demographic tailwinds provided by immigration and freedom of movement.

 

Rather the article suggests Brexit poses downside risks: that flexible labour markets and favourable demographics won't be blessings if the UK can't establish new trade and investment relationships to offset probable weaker trade links with the EU -and that of course is an entirely self-inflicted challenge.

 

Ah, the timely entrance of the Remoaner-in-chief, the usual disparaging insults preceding the main thrust of his post in an attempt to make him seem more clever than he actually is.

 

The problem is, that you accuse me of lacking comprehension of the article I linked, then proceeded to use it as the basis of a straw man fallacy. Well done.

 

Of course, I never suggested that Brexit will CAUSE the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7, did I? There was nothing wrong about my comprehension of the article, but you have reached conclusions on it that weren't expressed in the article. You argue that we might actually perform better remaining inside the EU than we would outside, and yet the caveat underlying the forecast of our future progress towards our economic growth depends they say on our ability to arrange the bilateral trade deals with the rest of the World, which we would not be able to fix as an individual member state of the EU.

 

“However, developing successful trade and investment links with faster-growing emerging economies will be critical to achieving this, offsetting probable weaker trade links with the EU after Brexit.”

 

The article makes no argument that we would be better off remaining in the EU and this is

according to a report that paints a bright outlook for the country’s prospects outside the EU.

 

Of course, if your memory is as sharp as your ability to comprehend things better than anybody else, you will recall me saying in other posts that we would face a brighter future by replacing any trade lost from leaving the EU, with trade deals with the growing economies of the World. If I recall correctly, you gave these sentiments your two thumbs up.

 

You attribute some of the advantages we will hold in future to our EU membership, for example the inward immigration we have faced as a result of freedom of movement of peoples forced on us by membership. However, we will obviously benefit far more from immigration that we can control, rather than having to take anybody holding an EU passport, regardless of their lack of skills or abilities. As it is, we discriminate currently against the employable cream of those fast developing countries by having to limit their numbers as immigrants, because of our membership of the EU

[shurlock]

Ah, the timely entrance of the Remoaner-in-chief, the usual disparaging insults preceding the main thrust of his post in an attempt to make him seem more clever than he actually is.

 

The problem is, that you accuse me of lacking comprehension of the article I linked, then proceeded to use it as the basis of a straw man fallacy. Well done.

 

Of course, I never suggested that Brexit will CAUSE the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7, did I? There was nothing wrong about my comprehension of the article, but you have reached conclusions on it that weren't expressed in the article. You argue that we might actually perform better remaining inside the EU than we would outside, and yet the caveat underlying the forecast of our future progress towards our economic growth depends they say on our ability to arrange the bilateral trade deals with the rest of the World, which we would not be able to fix as an individual member state of the EU.

 

 

 

The article makes no argument that we would be better off remaining in the EU and this is

 

Of course, if your memory is as sharp as your ability to comprehend things better than anybody else, you will recall me saying in other posts that we would face a brighter future by replacing any trade lost from leaving the EU, with trade deals with the growing economies of the World. If I recall correctly, you gave these sentiments your two thumbs up.

 

You attribute some of the advantages we will hold in future to our EU membership, for example the inward immigration we have faced as a result of freedom of movement of peoples forced on us by membership. However, we will obviously benefit far more from immigration that we can control, rather than having to take anybody holding an EU passport, regardless of their lack of skills or abilities. As it is, we discriminate currently against the employable cream of those fast developing countries by having to limit their numbers as immigrants, because of our membership of the EU

 

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.

Edited 7 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

For one who prides themselves on their comprehension, you come across as remarkably inept and I congratulate you for the continuation of the straw man argument.

 

Where did I say that this report voicing optimistic bright prospects for our future outside of the EU was the same as saying that our prospects would be brighter outside of the EU?

 

It was you insinuating that either we would be better off in the future had we voted to remain in, or alternatively worse off having voted to leave. The report made no conjecture about that, as I pointed out. (See below). I'm afraid that you appear to be tying yourself in knots, me old mucker.

 

The article makes no argument that we would be better off remaining in the EU and this is according to a report that paints a bright outlook for the country’s prospects outside the EU.

 

I also repeat for the benefit of your comprehension, I had also previously stated that long term forecasts were inevitably unreliable.

 

I note that your usual bluster doesn't oppose my arguments that two of the points in the report favouring our future growth outside the EU

will depend on it setting up strong trading arrangements and remaining open to “talented workers” from around the world,

both possibilities having been improved by our Brexit.

[shurlock]

For one who prides themselves on their comprehension, you come across as remarkably inept and I congratulate you for the continuation of the straw man argument.

 

Where did I say that this report voicing optimistic bright prospects for our future outside of the EU was the same as saying that our prospects would be brighter outside of the EU?

 

It was you insinuating that either we would be better off in the future had we voted to remain in, or alternatively worse off having voted to leave. The report made no conjecture about that, as I pointed out. (See below). I'm afraid that you appear to be tying yourself in knots, me old mucker.

 

 

 

I also repeat for the benefit of your comprehension, I had also previously stated that long term forecasts were inevitably unreliable.

 

I note that your usual bluster doesn't oppose my arguments that two of the points in the report favouring our future growth outside the EU both possibilities having been improved by our Brexit.

 

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.

Edited 7 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

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 don't even 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.

 

*Yawn*

 

So you're retreating in rather bad grace from arguing the toss over the last few posts where you were losing the argument. I acknowledge that although much credence was given to the forecasts of the dire consequences from PwC and the CBI by the Remoaners in the run up to the referendum, now that their predictions for the immediate repercussions of a vote to leave have not materialised, you are happy to dismiss their revised longer term forecasts as being largely irrelevant and of suspect reliability.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, the title of the Thread is "Post EU - the way forward"

 

So how do you figure it that forecasts regarding our potential economic prosperity post-Brexit are largely irrelevant to the debate?

 

As you finally admit, their forecasts did not model in the factors of Brexit, but the PM has made it clear that we will be leaving the single market and the customs union and the forecast for our prosperity relies on our ability to sign many trade deals with the fastest developing markets, which we would only be able to do outside of the customs union. Of course, if there was doubt about the position of our access to the single market, then their forecast ought to have had a best case/worst case scenario, something that they should have learned following their worst case forecast of the post referendum repercussions.

 

But you stick with your pessimistic Remoaner predictions and I'll stick with my optimistic position and time will tell who is right.

 

There are a lot of things that you Remoaners have been wrong about already these past several months.

[shurlock]

*Yawn*

 

So you're retreating in rather bad grace from arguing the toss over the last few posts where you were losing the argument. I acknowledge that although much credence was given to the forecasts of the dire consequences from PwC and the CBI by the Remoaners in the run up to the referendum, now that their predictions for the immediate repercussions of a vote to leave have not materialised, you are happy to dismiss their revised longer term forecasts as being largely irrelevant and of suspect reliability.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, the title of the Thread is "Post EU - the way forward"

 

So how do you figure it that forecasts regarding our potential economic prosperity post-Brexit are largely irrelevant to the debate?

 

As you finally admit, their forecasts did not model in the factors of Brexit, but the PM has made it clear that we will be leaving the single market and the customs union and the forecast for our prosperity relies on our ability to sign many trade deals with the fastest developing markets, which we would only be able to do outside of the customs union. Of course, if there was doubt about the position of our access to the single market, then their forecast ought to have had a best case/worst case scenario, something that they should have learned following their worst case forecast of the post referendum repercussions.

 

But you stick with your pessimistic Remoaner predictions and I'll stick with my optimistic position and time will tell who is right.

 

There are a lot of things that you Remoaners have been wrong about already these past several months.

 

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.

Edited 7 February, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

So the Bexit apocalyptic crash of the economy is now a medium-term drag on growth.

 

Glad the experts have cleared that one up. Wonder what it will be next week.

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

So to paraphrase your post, what you are saying is that the Guardian, the rag of the Liberal Elite Remoaners, has misrepresented the PwC report to paint a picture which is favourable to the Brexit position.

 

Then you go on to explain that the forecast is effectively useless anyway, in that it ignores the effects of Brexit by excluding the impact of trade and investment flows, whilst suggesting that our future prosperity depends on us arranging world trade deals with the developing economies, or did the Guardian make up that bit? Do you know for a fact that they used the Solow-Swann model?

 

Also apparently, you confirm that the model they have used reaches the same conclusion that I arrived at as a layman, that we will suffer a short term small reverse, but will prosper in the mid to long term.

 

According to you, they reach this conclusion based solely on demographics, education, capital investment and technological progress and ignore the massive economic benefits we will derive from arranging trade deals with the most strongly developing economies of the world and from attracting high quality immigrants. If we will do so well without those two aspects, just think how much better we will be once they take affect too!

 

This all seems to point to why these forecasts from economists are dismissed by the electorate and why they have become cynical towards them, as if what you claim is the case, then the PwC forecast is pretty well meaningless. And yet, the Remoaners on here orgasmed at the publication of every single forecast of economic Armageddon by outfits like PwC and the CBI, before the referendum. Where were you when you could have disparaged those reports then? Oh yes; you were using them as a stick to beat the Leavers.

[shurlock]

So to paraphrase your post, what you are saying is that the Guardian, the rag of the Liberal Elite Remoaners, has misrepresented the PwC report to paint a picture which is favourable to the Brexit position.

 

Who said misrepresent? Perhaps they misunderstood the report. You have to ask the Guardian. What they do is irrelevant to me

 

Then you go on to explain that the forecast is effectively useless anyway, in that it ignores the effects of Brexit by excluding the impact of trade and investment flows, whilst suggesting that our future prosperity depends on us arranging world trade deals with the developing economies, or did the Guardian make up that bit? Do you know for a fact that they used the Solow-Swann model?

 

I didn't say it was useless - I said it is not very useful if you want to assess whether Brexit will benefit the UK economy. Only the foreword mentions that future prosperity depends on arranging trade deals with non-EU countries. It is not a formal part of the model (pages 62-66). Note the conditional nature of the statement, that is, it is also possible that new deals won't materialise with risks on the downside. Because this is outside the model, the report cannot be used to settle the question

 

Also apparently, you confirm that the model they have used reaches the same conclusion that I arrived at as a layman, that we will suffer a short term small reverse, but will prosper in the mid to long term.

 

I said the way the model is constructed points to the UK being off worse outside the EU than it it

 

According to you, they reach this conclusion based solely on demographics, education, capital investment and technological progress and ignore the massive economic benefits we will derive from arranging trade deals with the most strongly developing economies of the world and from attracting high quality immigrants. If we will do so well without those two aspects, just think how much better we will be once they take affect too!

 

Equally they reach this conclusion without taking into account all the economic risks and dangers that could accompany Brexit. Again you refuse -or more likely are unable to engage with the literature that points out the contradiction of the UK jeopardising good existing trade arrangements with the EU in favour of chasing agreements which even if they are reached -a huge if- might not actually benefit the UK much. By the way its take effect Les.

 

This all seems to point to why these forecasts from economists are dismissed by the electorate and why they have become cynical towards them, as if what you claim is the case, then the PwC forecast is pretty well meaningless. And yet, the Remoaners on here orgasmed at the publication of every single forecast of economic Armageddon by outfits like PwC and the CBI, before the referendum. Where were you when you could have disparaged those reports then? Oh yes; you were using them as a stick to beat the Leavers.

 

Point out where I did? I basically take short-term forecasts and very long-term forecasts with a pinch of salt. Beyond that people are cynical because they don't understand the nature of forecasting, can't be bothered to look under the hood to understand a model's strengths and weaknesses or rely on second-hand reports that often trivialise findings. You've exhibited all three in spades on this thread. Congrats

 

Keep fighting the good fight, little kipper.

Edited 8 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Keep fighting the good fight, little kipper.

 

So in your opinion, it is possible that the Guardian's economic reporter might have misunderstood the report, whereas you interpreted it with absolute clarity. Perhaps you should apply for a job there with your liberal elite soul-mates.

 

Although not useless, you admit that the report was not very useful in assessing whether Brexit will be beneficial to the economy. I think that most readers will have contextualised the article as I did, and see it as largely contradicting PwC's earlier report on how we would be adversely effected economically by the decision to leave the EU. I doubt that there will be more than a handful of nerds who will bother to read God knows how many pages of the report, so they rely on the so-called experts to precis it for them.

 

Regarding my assessment of the balance between what we might lose in terms of trade from leaving the EU and what we will gain from trading with the wide world, I believe that we will retain substantial access to trade with the EU (which is in theirs and our best interests) and that any trade with the EU we lose will be more than adequately compensated for by the increase in trade outside of the EU. Even by falling back on WTO trading tariffs, I still believe that we will be better off. No doubt you will be champing at the bit to produce no end of "evidence" from the Remoaner camp "experts" to disparage this viewpoint.

 

Yes, effect, not affect; a typo. Whilst you are nit-picking, I'll retaliate. Unless you are a Yank, then we Brits look under the bonnet, not the hood.

 

Like you, and most of the electorate, I also take economic forecasts with a pinch of salt. Whole swathes of the electorate are now cynical of economic experts as a result of Project Fear.

 

I don't need to keep fighting the good fight, as my side has won. Time for you and the rest of the Remoaners to wave the white flag and accept it. Finally, as you never tire of labelling me a kipper, I'll carry on reminding you until it penetrates, that I am a Conservative, dear boy.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Charles, where in my post above have I changed my view that "wait and see" was the best policy?

 

Thanks for reminding everybody that you were one of the main cheerleaders for taking the dire forecasts of the so-called experts as being the gospel truth, whereas I took the more measured approach that as many of the same people had been wrong about whether we should have joined the Euro Zone, it would be wise to take their forecasts on the EU with a degree of cynicism.

 

The irony doesn't register with you at all that you were prepared to be so adamant that the dire economic forecasts (put out even before the referendum was held) had credibility because of who it was that was making them. Now that over seven months have passed since the referendum, you don't have the humility to admit that you were wrong to have placed so much store in what they forecast, even though they have tacitly admitted that they were over-pessimistic. You were prepared to take the word of the current Bank of England governor over his predecessor's view, those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer pre-referendum over a predecessor of his. I suppose that it suited you to follow the opinions that best suited your prejudices.

 

And then follows the bigger irony, the accusation that a cynical approach taken to ignore those forecasts was arrogant, followed by the ultimate arrogance typical of the Remoaners, that everybody who voted to leave must be senile or thick. This is old hat from the time of the referendum itself, churned up once more by the biased BBC. Most of the MPs have accepted that as a majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU, they will abide by their wishes. Quite why the Beeb can't seem to get their heads around that concept is beyond me, but not unexpected.

 

You misunderstand the situation again my dear Les - the economists employed by the Bank of England are not your sneering Daily Mail Speak "so-called experts" they are in fact very much the real thing. You are equally wrong in stating that I have chosen to describe those who voted to leave as "senile or thick". It is in fact the RESEARCH - not me - that indicates 'Leave' voters were on average older, less diverse and more poorly educated than those who voted to 'Remain'. You have earned yourself a reputation on here as being infamously 'evidence averse' - but if you can provide a shred of meaningful evidence to show why this conclusion re Leave voters may be erroneous then I shall of course consider it in the fullness of time. While I await this latest bombshell I'm left with the distinct impression that the old English saying 'the truth hurts' best describes your reaction here.

 

As for the better than expected economic performance of our economy in the months following the referendum, this short term effect is explained by a number of factors. Firstly, in a effort to stop the economy falling off that proverbial 'cliff' the BoE decided to allow Sterling to crash and actually CUT interest rates in the immediate aftermath of the vote - personal debt in the UK is now at record levels. Secondly, the Bank simultaneously pumped billions of pounds into the economy via a further round of QE (Quantitative Easing). All this has resulted in consumer spending remaining surprisingly strong in recent months and the UK is very much a consumer economy these days. Furthermore, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has in effect kicked George Osborne's valiant efforts to reduce our huge and growing national debt into the 'long grass' as it were. The fall in the value of Sterling has also been of some assistance to our exporters - although only at the cost of rising inflation now and in the years ahead.

 

So our economy is at the moment riding a wave of (debt fuelled) government and consumer spending and on the surface the situation doesn't look too bad. Look behind the headlines however and the long term picture is rather less rosy I think. Were you capable of putting your prejudices aside for a moment then instead of using the BoE as a 'whipping boy' you really should be thanking the bank for its efforts to steer the economy through this crisis. But naturally no one on here would expect that level of grace from of you given your record.

Edited 8 February, 2017 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

...I don't need to keep fighting the good fight, as my side has won. Time for you and the rest of the Remoaners to wave the white flag and accept it. Finally, as you never tire of labelling me a kipper, I'll carry on reminding you until it penetrates, that I am a Conservative, dear boy.

 

So you are both denying that you have changed your previous cautious 'wait and see' stance and AT THE SAME TIME maintaining that your side has somehow "won" the argument already. All this two years before we have even left the EU!

 

I really must thank you Les for this magnificent effort to amuse the forum. Surely few sights in life are funnier than seeing people disagree with themselves

[Wes Tender]

You misunderstand the situation again my dear Les - the economists employed by the Bank of England are not your sneering Daily Mail Speak "so-called experts" they are in fact very much the real thing. You are equally wrong in stating that I have chosen to describe those who voted to leave as "senile or thick". It is in fact the RESEARCH - not me - that indicates 'Leave' voters were on average older, less diverse and more poorly educated than those who voted to 'Remain'. You have earned yourself a reputation on here as being infamously 'evidence averse' - but if you can provide a shred of meaningful evidence to show why this conclusion re Leave voters may be erroneous then I shall of course consider it in the fullness of time. While I await this latest bombshell I'm left with the distinct impression that the old English saying 'the truth hurts' best describes your reaction here.

As for the better than expected economic performance of our economy in the months following the referendum, this short term effect is explained by a number of factors. Firstly, in a effort to stop the economy falling off that proverbial 'cliff' the BoE decided to allow Sterling to crash and actually CUT interest rates in the immediate aftermath of the vote - personal debt in the UK is now at record levels. Secondly, the Bank

simultaneously pumped billions of pounds into the economy via a further round of QE (Quantitative Easing). All this has resulted in consumer spending remaining surprisingly strong in recent months and the UK is very much a consumer economy these days. Furthermore, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has in effect kicked George Osborne's valiant efforts to reduce our huge and growing national debt into the 'long grass' as it were. The fall in the value of Sterling has also been of some assistance to our exporters - although only at the cost of rising inflation now and in the years ahead.

So our economy is at the moment riding a wave of (debt fuelled) government and consumer spending and on the surface the situation doesn't look too bad. Look behind the headlines however and the long term picture is rather less rosy I think. Were you capable of putting your prejudices aside for a moment then instead of using the BoE as a 'whipping boy' you really should be thanking the bank for its efforts to steer the economy through this crisis. But naturally no one on here would expect that level of grace from of you given your record.

I misunderstand nothing in what you wrote, Charles; you misunderstand what I wrote. When I accused the so-called experts of getting it wrong, I was referring to the various agents of Project Fear, the CBI, PwC, the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his Treasury forecasts, the IMF, etc. All of their short term post referendum forecasts were wrong (and even the Bank of England has revised their forecasts too). My only mention of the Bank of England was to point out to you that Carney's pessimistic stance was challenged by his predecessor Lord King, whose opinion on Brexit was much more upbeat. However, even their "real thing" economic experts aren't immune to errors of judgement, as admitted by their chief economist:-

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-05/britons-to-throttle-back-spending-in-2017-boe-s-haldane-says

 

As Haldane says, economic expertise has taken a knock during and after the Referendum Campaign. Here's some more light reading for you on the subject:-

 

http://www.cityam.com/258614/brexit-has-humiliated-britains-failed-economic-soothsayers

http://www.cityam.com/258170/why-economics-profession-remains-blind-benefits-brexit

 

Interestingly, Carney doesn't agree with the BoE's chief economist over whether any admission was due that they had been overly pessimistic about the short term consequences of a leave vote in the referendum.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-11/carney-defends-boe-s-actions-on-brexit-disagrees-with-haldane

 

In any event, Carney took those necessary steps, made some adjustments, pulled some levers, did what one would have expected of him to steady the ship. After all, it is his job, and he knew perfectly well what was required even before the result of the referendum was known. Many would say that his reduction in the interest rate was totally unnecessary. The fall in the value of the pound was generally welcomed by many as it was deemed to be overvalued. However, Carney comes in for a lot of criticism for adopting too high a political profile during the referendum and of talking down the economy.

 

In your subsequent post, once again you are getting your knickers twisted somewhat. The winning bit referred to the referendum, the wait and see stance to your posts claiming that Brexit had beggared our future and that of our children.

[Johnny Bognor]

You misunderstand the situation again my dear Les - the economists employed by the Bank of England are not your sneering Daily Mail Speak "so-called experts" they are in fact very much the real thing. You are equally wrong in stating that I have chosen to describe those who voted to leave as "senile or thick". It is in fact the RESEARCH - not me - that indicates 'Leave' voters were on average older, less diverse and more poorly educated than those who voted to 'Remain'. You have earned yourself a reputation on here as being infamously 'evidence averse' - but if you can provide a shred of meaningful evidence to show why this conclusion re Leave voters may be erroneous then I shall of course consider it in the fullness of time. While I await this latest bombshell I'm left with the distinct impression that the old English saying 'the truth hurts' best describes your reaction here

 

Indeed the research, on the surface, does show this.

 

However, I doubt that the opinion of a 2015 Solent University media studies graduate carries more gravitas than a Mechanical Engineering HND student from a former polytechnic, say from 30-40 years ago. The research fails to take into account the fact that amongst the young (who were largely more in favour of remain), every man and his dog (and cat and rabbit) goes to "university". I use the word 'university' in the loosest sense, as many modern "universities" would just about be classified as colleges a couple of decades ago.

 

So more youngsters are "better" educated when compared to the older generations, where only the top 10% went to university. More youngsters voted remain and on paper they are "more educated". But the VALUE of such education isn't directly comparable. On this basis, you have to question the research and what it insinuates...

[shurlock]

Indeed the research, on the surface, does show this.

 

However, I doubt that the opinion of a 2015 Solent University media studies graduate carries more gravitas than a Mechanical Engineering HND student from a former polytechnic, say from 30-40 years ago. The research fails to take into account the fact that amongst the young (who were largely more in favour of remain), every man and his dog (and cat and rabbit) goes to "university". I use the word 'university' in the loosest sense, as many modern "universities" would just about be classified as colleges a couple of decades ago.

 

So more youngsters are "better" educated when compared to the older generations, where only the top 10% went to university. More youngsters voted remain and on paper they are "more educated". But the VALUE of such education isn't directly comparable. On this basis, you have to question the research and what it insinuates...

 

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

Edited 8 February, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

Of course more higher income people voted remain, they are less likely to feel the negative effects of mass immigration.

 

It's great being able to get some cheap Polish guys in to tile your new bathroom, not so great for the British tiler who has to compete.

[buctootim]

Of course more higher income people voted remain, they are less likely to feel the negative effects of mass immigration.

 

It's great being able to get some cheap Polish guys in to tile your new bathroom, not so great for the British tiler who has to compete.

 

 

Slow on the uptake or just dishonest? The average wage of EU immigrants is higher than the UK average, as is pointed out every time you attempt this. The low wage immigrants are on average from Bangladesh and Pakistan.

[aintforever]

Slow on the uptake or just dishonest? The average wage of EU immigrants is higher than the UK average, as is pointed out every time you attempt this. The low wage immigrants are on average from Bangladesh and Pakistan.

 

Does the average tell the whole story though? Just because there are many high earning EU immigrants does not mean it's any easier for say English cleaners to compete with EU immigrants willing to work for less.

 

Also if having access to an unlimited pool of cheap labour forces wages down, if forces down for everyone so naturally there are more English low wage earners showing up on the stats.

 

We employ many Polish at my company, you get more for your money because most of them are over qualified and have a much better attitude because they have travelled so far to work. It's great for our company but it does mean that somewhere there is British people losing out.

[saint si]

Does the average tell the whole story though? Just because there are many high earning EU immigrants does not mean it's any easier for say English cleaners to compete with EU immigrants willing to work for less.

 

Also if having access to an unlimited pool of cheap labour forces wages down, if forces down for everyone so naturally there are more English low wage earners showing up on the stats.

 

We employ many Polish at my company, you get more for your money because most of them are over qualified and have a much better attitude because they have travelled so far to work. It's great for our company but it does mean that somewhere there is British people losing out.

 

Yeah how dare these better qualified people with a better attitude to work come over here and work for us.

[aintforever]

Yeah how dare these better qualified people with a better attitude to work come over here and work for us.

 

Like I said, it is good for my company and so is good for me.

 

But, when we hire a Pole it means there is a British person somewhere we have left on the dole - if you were him you might not have the same attitude.

 

Rest assured, there is someone somewhere who can do your job better than you for a fraction of your salary as well.

[Jonnyboy]

Have to disagree there, me old pedigree chum.

 

Increasing employment regulation from the EU has already tied the hands of businesses in the EU and there is no reason for this not to continue. Being liberated from the EU, means that we can maintain and create an even more flexible economy. There is also a significant weight applied to the trade deals that we will be able to do going forward. Both these points only come into play by leaving the EU, therefore the bigger upsides in the report are attributable to Brexit.

 

And what are these employment regulations you want us to remove in the UK?

[shurlock]

Does the average tell the whole story though? Just because there are many high earning EU immigrants does not mean it's any easier for say English cleaners to compete with EU immigrants willing to work for less.

 

Also if having access to an unlimited pool of cheap labour forces wages down, if forces down for everyone so naturally there are more English low wage earners showing up on the stats.

 

We employ many Polish at my company, you get more for your money because most of them are over qualified and have a much better attitude because they have travelled so far to work. It's great for our company but it does mean that somewhere there is British people losing out.

 

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.

Edited 8 February, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

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.

 

Perhaps a lot of people benefit, except the poor sods stuck on minimum wage.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Slow on the uptake or just dishonest? The average wage of EU immigrants is higher than the UK average

 

Just because there's a lot of high earning EU nationals, does not mean that at the lower end of the wage scale,uncontrolled EU migration has not suppressed wages. But you crack on with dismissing people's concerns and keep calling them liars. Personally, I'm grateful for people with your attitude because without people like you , Brexit would never have happened. Your ilk have even ensured we have a "hard" Brexit. So I'm doubly thankful. The whinging and whining is just the icing on the cake. Perfect.....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk