Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
utter tosh.
we'd just do something different like focus on productivity which as Stuart Rose pointed out would lead to higher salaries and higher GDP per head.
I keep saying: Vote Leave should put that quote in Remain's pipe and smoke it.
It might be time for me to bother Matthew Elliot again.
Rose is to Remain what Banks is to Leave, egotistical businessmen spouting nonsense
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Not really. Mass immigration boost overall GDP, not GDP per head, which is the number that matters.
Scott's aspiring to be India not Switzerland.
Switzerland has a high level of immigration, but they have so many "qualifications" required to do unskilled jobs they don't get a lot of unskilled immigration, their multiplier is probably closer to 1.0-1.1 per migrant.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Sir Lynton couldn't afford me.
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
Afternoon TSE,
That link I posted earlier, could you tell me which parts are untrue please.
Quite important I am sure you would agree.
I sent you a vanilla message a few hours ago on this.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Not really. Mass immigration boost overall GDP, not GDP per head, which is the number that matters.
Scott's aspiring to be India not Switzerland.
I once spoke to a 'civil servant' at the FO who argued that it would be better for the UK to have higher total GDP and lower GDP per head than to have lower total GDP and higher GDP per head. Yes, that's right, he wanted lower average living standards.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Not really. Mass immigration boost overall GDP, not GDP per head, which is the number that matters.
Scott's aspiring to be India not Switzerland.
Switzerland has a high level of immigration, but they have so many "qualifications" required to do unskilled jobs they don't get a lot of unskilled immigration, their multiplier is probably closer to 1.0-1.1 per migrant.
precisely. there's nothing wrong with immigration to fill a need particulary if it comes with skills the country doesn't possess. But throw the doors open immigration take all comers is just a recipe for a low wage low skill economy.
I'm so old I can remember when the Conservatives used to aspire to high wages and high skills.
Just listened to a very impressive Andrea Leadsom on the BBCNews. She didn't indulge in any personal stuff (much to the interviewer's disappointment) but commented she could produce a much more positive treasury report with different modelling etc. We need to see much more of the 'female' Leavers.
@bbclaurak: Paul Johnson, one of few really independent voice on economy + #euref says .......
@bbclaurak: "everyone who's worked in this area has come to same conclusion: the result would be negative. Exactly how negative? Much more difficult..."
That simply isn't true. Both Open Europe and Capital Economics are both independent and have not reached that conclusion.
Re Paul Johnson and IFS
from Wiki, I couldn't help but feed the conspiracy theories :-)
Notable former members of the IFS include Evan Davis and Stephanie Flanders (BBC journalists), Chris Giles (Financial Times Economics Editor), Tom Clark (Guardian columnist),[17] Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister) and Rupert Harrison (Chief of Staff to Chancellor George Osborne).
The BBC are worried.
We have to remember all of these people mix, socialise and trade jobs with each other.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Not really. Mass immigration boost overall GDP, not GDP per head, which is the number that matters.
Scott's aspiring to be India not Switzerland.
" In 2015, 16% of the population resident in Switzerland were nationals from EU countries, a higher proportion than in the UK."
Section 2.105 p 63
Your vision is that the UK has 9.6 million people from elsewhere in the EU living in it?
This Treasury report will never be a 'dodgy dossier' because we're not about to invade somewhere to prove conclusively that it's rubbish a la '45 minutes', but it does feel like an 'edited' (for truth) version could prove a useful tool for Leave in the sense that once the figures are properly worked out, it may turn out the Treasury monkeys might not have been fearful enough. As a worst case scenario (from a Government that has admitted it's not neutral), it might turn out to be a comfort rather than a threat. It could be waved around in Leaver interviews 'this is what the treasury says' etc.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
A certain type of Labour voter was really motivated, the sort who is already going to turnout and vote Labour.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Even if these well baked figures turned out to be correct, it's £4,300 by 2030, or £300 a year for the next 14 years if you like, an amount smaller than the Government tweaks to personal taxation of the average family each year.
Further that's for additional income they might have had, not cuts to existing income that they already have.
In or out we are all going to be much better off by 2030.
As I noted yesterday, sometimes it is all about perceptions not about the facts.
The polling shows that the voters that will win this referendum for either side will be basing their decision primarily on economic factors.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Sir Lynton couldn't afford me.
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
Afternoon TSE,
That link I posted earlier, could you tell me which parts are untrue please.
Quite important I am sure you would agree.
I sent you a vanilla message a few hours ago on this.
Haven't got it, at least if I have I don't know how to access it
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Sir Lynton couldn't afford me.
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
Afternoon TSE,
That link I posted earlier, could you tell me which parts are untrue please.
Quite important I am sure you would agree.
I sent you a vanilla message a few hours ago on this.
Haven't got it, at least if I have I don't know how to access it
Click on your name, then top right hand corner of the screen, you'll notice an inbox (a box with a downward arrow) hit that, and it'll bring up your vanilla inbox.
Indeed, Mr. Evershed, it's the same nonsense as when Labour (about a decade ago) claimed Conservatives increasing spending at a lower rate amounted to a cut.
The economic literature on this topic is very clear. Immigration is good for immigrants. It is neutral or slightly negative for the host population.
It is good for businesses that rely on cheap Labour or those that require a large pool of skilled international labour, where they can't get it domestically, or it would cost far too much to train.
It might be hersey to say this but i don't think our politics should be solely led by what's convenient for influential businesses.
Nothing is black and white. No immigration is clearly mad as is unlimited immigration.
My issue is that we are unable to decide the limit between, in our interests, because we don't have the tools to do so.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Not really. Mass immigration boost overall GDP, not GDP per head, which is the number that matters.
Scott's aspiring to be India not Switzerland.
" In 2015, 16% of the population resident in Switzerland were nationals from EU countries, a higher proportion than in the UK."
Section 2.105 p 63
Your vision is that the UK has 9.6 million people from elsewhere in the EU living in it?
if they can get us all up to a Swiss standard of living why not, I'm quite happy with the idea of a highly skilled prosperous UK. However the chances of that actually happening in the next 10 years are pretty slim, the chances of importing 9.6 million people with low to no skills are much higher.
Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.
Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.
Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.
No it really won't.
If Leave wins that its, the issue will be about what deal we get, there'll be no appetite to take us back into the EU.
If Remain wins, are Leave really going to say, we hate the EU because it ignores the wishes of the voters, so we're going to ignore the wish of voters who have just voted to Remain?
Asking the country to take part in a third referendum in a short space of time might be pushing it.
This Treasury report will never be a 'dodgy dossier' because we're not about to invade somewhere to prove conclusively that it's rubbish a la '45 minutes', but it does feel like an 'edited' (for truth) version could prove a useful tool for Leave in the sense that once the figures are properly worked out, it may turn out the Treasury monkeys might not have been fearful enough. As a worst case scenario (from a Government that has admitted it's not neutral), it might turn out to be a comfort rather than a threat. It could be waved around in Leaver interviews 'this is what the treasury says' etc.
You are correct we can never wholly prove or disprove claims like those in the Treasury's work.
However, we can examine the assumptions used. Even on a cursory reading these appear extreme.
We can also look back to see what happened in other places after claims of this sort were made.
We have an excellent example in the case of Norway in 1994. Many of the same apocalyptic warnings were heard from the YES to EU side there, should there be a NO vote. Including a claim that employment would fall by 5% (which would be equivalent to 1.7 million jobs in the UK today).
How well did these claims stand up? Norway enjoyed one of its fastest periods of sustained economic growth from 1994-1997. Even though oil prices were relatively low in this period.
So the YES claims re Norway were shown to be without any foundation.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Even if these well baked figures turned out to be correct, it's £4,300 by 2030, or £300 a year for the next 14 years if you like, an amount smaller than the Government tweaks to personal taxation of the average family each year.
Further that's for additional income they might have had, not cuts to existing income that they already have.
In or out we are all going to be much better off by 2030.
As I noted yesterday, sometimes it is all about perceptions not about the facts.
The polling shows that the voters that will win this referendum for either side will be basing their decision primarily on economic factors.
maybe yes maybe no
it's economics versus can't be arsed.
So george can't motivate he can only scare - bit is it scary enough ?
Next, take an interest in companies that are directly hurt by the more idiotic policies imposed by Brussels. Energy is one example. Across the EU, power costs almost twice as much as it does in the US. That may not matter to a design office which runs on laptops, low-energy light bulbs and a Nespresso machine. But to an energy-intensive manufacturer in a sector such as glass, chemicals or alloys, it makes a vast difference. You might think we don’t make that kind of stuff any more, but energy-intensive manufacturing still accounts for 2 per cent of UK GDP. It should be a winner — not least because it will gain a huge competitive advantage over its rivals across Europe, who will still be hobbled by expensive power.
Mr. Royale, that's not what Osborne was saying today. He said it was £4,300 per household, per year. Not £4,300 in total.
It is the reduction in the annual GDP by 2030 per (number of) households in 2015.
Note: A reduction in GDP is not the same as a reduction in household income or a reduction in household wealth.
BBC Fact Check says
"The poster at George Osborne's event this morning was very clear - that there would be a £4,300-a-year cost to families by 2030 if Britain leaves the EU.
It's not true. The government is confusing GDP per household with household income."
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Even if these well baked figures turned out to be correct, it's £4,300 by 2030, or £300 a year for the next 14 years if you like, an amount smaller than the Government tweaks to personal taxation of the average family each year.
Further that's for additional income they might have had, not cuts to existing income that they already have.
In or out we are all going to be much better off by 2030.
As I noted yesterday, sometimes it is all about perceptions not about the facts.
The polling shows that the voters that will win this referendum for either side will be basing their decision primarily on economic factors.
I have never disagreed with that - I agree with you.
I am pleased you have now moved to talking about this as a perception rather than as a fact.
Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.
Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.
Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.
No it really won't.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
Really are you still trumpeting this bullshit. If the Tories won 51% next General Election (not impossible with the comrades in charge!) would Labour supporters hang up their red rosettes and says they better stop campaigning for social justice and leftie politics because the will of the people didn't go their way ?
Everything anyone says that you disagree with is "bullshit", you sound very angry.
Elections are ongoing, referenda are at least meant to try and settle an issue for a decider so in order that we can move on. If Tory's want to keep on tearing themselves apart after June then that's their business.
Ah, you mean like separatism in Scotland, I distinctly remember that fading out after the Referendum.
Just because the Nats in Scotland can't accept the will of the people either doesn't make it right. Nats and Eurosceptics both have a hardcore of fanatics
That's a very interesting post, but as I see it if the EU tries to impose the end of trial by jury or the creation of an EU army - or crosses any other line over which we just cannot compromise - then we know we have the ability to withdraw. This referendum demonstrates that. In fact, we would not even need a referendum, we could just do it.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
It certainly can; but it won't The present political class have neither the interest or the inkling to govern independently. They like, and are used to, taking orders from Brussels. In fact they revel in it. The sad truth is, whatever balls they had has long disappeared. They all look forward to cushy jobs for being good little boys and girls.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Sir Lynton couldn't afford me.
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
Afternoon TSE,
That link I posted earlier, could you tell me which parts are untrue please.
Quite important I am sure you would agree.
I sent you a vanilla message a few hours ago on this.
Haven't got it, at least if I have I don't know how to access it
Click on your name, then top right hand corner of the screen, you'll notice an inbox (a box with a downward arrow) hit that, and it'll bring up your vanilla inbox.
The Treasury report claims the EEA has zero beneficial impact on services!
That sounds correct. I wouldn't expect much if any damage or benefit on services from the EEA option compared with the EU.
The £4300 figure (6.2% reduction on GDP) assumes "negotiated bilateral agreement[s]". But under EEA the figure becomes £2600 per household (3.8% reduction in GDP). Table A16, p 186 But very particular assumptions lie behind these "Final modelling results". I would question: (1) the idea that leaving is like a negative exogenous shock to the level of technology "which is maintained as a permanent level shift until the end of the simulation. This shock temporarily reduces the growth rate of output of the UK economy." The shock could well positive – shaking off the numerous impediments, regulations, and misdirections we have from the EU, not to mention the membership tax. (2) the idea that leaving necessarily implies "reduced openness to trade".
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Sir Lynton couldn't afford me.
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
Afternoon TSE,
That link I posted earlier, could you tell me which parts are untrue please.
Quite important I am sure you would agree.
I sent you a vanilla message a few hours ago on this.
Be nice for all to know if it is utter tosh or which if any bits have any reality , I don't think a vanilla message to one person cuts the mustard.
It's an interesting point. As a Europhile I wouldn't dream of voting no just to get rid of Cameron (it's not as though we'd thereby be removing the Tories - they'd just produce someone else). But if I could remove Cameron by voting to ban potholing or something else I didn't care about, I'd be tempted, and lots of people don't care or aren't sure, so might be tempted.
But my recollection of the Wilson referendum is that it was still seen as a Government initiative of doubtful virtue since the renegotiation was seen as a token effort). What was different is that the Government didn't bother to rubbish the "No" campaigners so much, since they were clearly a bit fringe-like (Powell, Benn) anyway.
Peter Shore, Barbara Castle, John Silkin , John Biffen , Edward Du Cann were hardly 'fringe-like'!
Comments
Why?
'We would have more global influence'
To do what?
'Err...'
I'm so old I can remember when the Conservatives used to aspire to high wages and high skills.
We need to see much more of the 'female' Leavers.
We have to remember all of these people mix, socialise and trade jobs with each other.
" In 2015, 16% of the population resident in Switzerland were nationals from EU countries, a higher proportion than in the UK."
Section 2.105 p 63
Your vision is that the UK has 9.6 million people from elsewhere in the EU living in it?
The polling shows that the voters that will win this referendum for either side will be basing their decision primarily on economic factors.
Note: A reduction in GDP is not the same as a reduction in household income or a reduction in household wealth.
Then reply to that message that way.
It might be hersey to say this but i don't think our politics should be solely led by what's convenient for influential businesses.
Nothing is black and white. No immigration is clearly mad as is unlimited immigration.
My issue is that we are unable to decide the limit between, in our interests, because we don't have the tools to do so.
However, we can examine the assumptions used. Even on a cursory reading these appear extreme.
We can also look back to see what happened in other places after claims of this sort were made.
We have an excellent example in the case of Norway in 1994. Many of the same apocalyptic warnings were heard from the YES to EU side there, should there be a NO vote. Including a claim that employment would fall by 5% (which would be equivalent to 1.7 million jobs in the UK today).
How well did these claims stand up? Norway enjoyed one of its fastest periods of sustained economic growth from 1994-1997. Even though oil prices were relatively low in this period.
So the YES claims re Norway were shown to be without any foundation.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
it's economics versus can't be arsed.
So george can't motivate he can only scare - bit is it scary enough ?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/how-to-invest-if-youre-sure-were-heading-for-brexit/
Next, take an interest in companies that are directly hurt by the more idiotic policies imposed by Brussels. Energy is one example. Across the EU, power costs almost twice as much as it does in the US. That may not matter to a design office which runs on laptops, low-energy light bulbs and a Nespresso machine. But to an energy-intensive manufacturer in a sector such as glass, chemicals or alloys, it makes a vast difference. You might think we don’t make that kind of stuff any more, but energy-intensive manufacturing still accounts for 2 per cent of UK GDP. It should be a winner — not least because it will gain a huge competitive advantage over its rivals across Europe, who will still be hobbled by expensive power.
Relevant to my interests...
"The poster at George Osborne's event this morning was very clear - that there would be a £4,300-a-year cost to families by 2030 if Britain leaves the EU.
It's not true. The government is confusing GDP per household with household income."
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201
I am pleased you have now moved to talking about this as a perception rather than as a fact.
The present political class have neither the interest or the inkling to govern independently.
They like, and are used to, taking orders from Brussels. In fact they revel in it.
The sad truth is, whatever balls they had has long disappeared. They all look forward to cushy jobs for being good little boys and girls.
But very particular assumptions lie behind these "Final modelling results". I would question:
(1) the idea that leaving is like a negative exogenous shock to the level of technology "which is maintained as a permanent level shift until the end of the simulation. This shock temporarily reduces the growth rate of output of the UK economy." The shock could well positive – shaking off the numerous impediments, regulations, and misdirections we have from the EU, not to mention the membership tax.
(2) the idea that leaving necessarily implies "reduced openness to trade".