Johnson has called Britain's USD350m a week contribution a drop in the ocean.
After calling a huge swathe of ordinary people 'extremists'
If I were remain, I would get this guy off quick.
I missed that corker. A million here, a million there - it soon adds up to real money... I noticed when Googling VoteLeave, they've a clocking total of UK contributions to the EU as their url.
The Sunil on Sunday's "Be LEAVE" campaign prefers to use the NET figure of £8.5 billion for 2015, which works out at £163 million a week.
By contrast, the UK gave India £279 million for the whole YEAR (again, 2015).
"Johnson has called Britain's USD350m a week contribution a drop in the ocean.
After calling a huge swathe of ordinary people 'extremists'
If I were remain, I would get this guy off quick.'
A timely reminder,if one was needed, that it was this guy and his pals that spent 13 years pissing our money away.
AJ masterminded the introduction of tuition fees - saved the taxpayer no end of money. Ironically it was Leave's great hero IDS who opposed the policy as opposition leader, for all the good it did him.
And yet according to the FT journalist who followed the lead up to the negotiations and who was interviewed for WaO on Radio 4, limits on freedom of movement is exactly the position Cameron was pursuing until perhaps 24 hours before his speech. The journalist effectively backed exactly what IDS claimed this morning.
Well, I wasn't there, so I can't comment. I did say at the time that I was surprised Cameron didn't get more concessions on benefits. But what does that show? It shows that our EU friends - especially those in Eastern Europe - thought that this was a key point for them. That's not going to change if we leave. Therefore, if we want full access to the Single Market, we'll be up against exactly the same problem.
Possibly not the line Remain should be taking at the moment. Effectively confirming that as long as we remain in the EU we cannot control migration.
Won't work with me of course either way but then as people keep pointing out we free movement Leavers are in a tiny minority.
Well tbh, we could solve the issue very easily by making benefits wholly contributory, minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to access the UK benefits system. It works in Switzerland.
Possibly not the line Remain should be taking at the moment. Effectively confirming that as long as we remain in the EU we cannot control migration.
Won't work with me of course either way but then as people keep pointing out we free movement Leavers are in a tiny minority.
Yes, of course, if we remain in the EU, or sign up to an EEA-style deal, then it's true that we can't control EU/EEA immigration, except at the margin with the minor changes to benefits Cameron has negotiated. However, those won't have a significant effect on numbers.
Conversely, if we Leave, and don't sign up to an EEA-style deal, then the economic hit will be larger, but we'll have more control on migration. As long as people understand the trade-off, that's a legitimate choice to make.
I clearly agree with your view that Dave had no hope of getting a deal negotiated. I clearly differ from you enormously in thinking the right thing to do now is commit to being part of a United States of Europe.
Vote Leave.
Well, I certainly don't think that the right thing to do is commit to being part of a United States of Europe. But it is certainly true that some people - over-represented here - had absurdly over-optimistic expectations of the renegotiation. There was never the slightest possibility of the EU abandoning central principles such as freedom of movement.
The same people tend to have absurdly over-optimistic views on what we could get in a negotiation with our EU friends post-Brexit, and on what we could get in free trade agreements with other countries. That's why they were so angry at Obama pointing out some basic home truths.
So basically you're saying that we're stuck where we are and can't get out and have to accept everything the EU does in future. A bit 1984 that - foot stamping on a face for all eternity
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
Remain's having another cracking day - Johnson calls those who disagree 'extremists' and other names. And IDS has annoyed Number 10 by having an opinion.
So whatever message Remain wanted to convey - it's lost in Red on Blue fighting. More please.
Oh, I forgot - Remain's campaign is *near perfect*
PS Comments by those US defence wallahs panned across the board.
Any day when IDS is in the news can be described as cracking for Remain
Do you think? I honestly think he's done incredibly well. From someone who despaired of him as leader. His interventions I've seen have all been memorable, salient, and media friendly. I can't say the same of Boris, Gove, Fox, or Nigel.
Really? You think his hysterical resignation or his appearance on Marr showed him in a good light? He just looked like a failed, bitter ex leader and reminded people, probably even those who have some sympathy with his views, what a treacherous, intellectual lightweight he was. And is. He'd have done better to have watched and copied how Gove acted rather than stabbing another PM in the back...
Yes, I do. But then I'm predisposed to that view, and I assume you are predisposed the other way, so we both have to try and judge beyond our biases. Gove has been rubbish in my view. No killer instinct. Too gaffe prone. No clarity of message.
Is Boris saying that outside the single market in, say, widgets, we wouldn't have to accept the one-size-fits-all regulations? We could have our very own widget regulations and not be subject to those very same regulations? But what if we wanted to sell widgets to the EU?
And do you think businesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
Generally big business prefers one-size fits all regulations because that allows them to use regulation as a barrier to entry. They also like a single global standard, if possible, because that benefits volume producers (i.e. large players)
SMEs prefer flexibility because that enables them to be opportunistic about their strategy.
Of course if we want to sell widgets into the EU market, then we have to comply with widget standards for that market. But the vast majority of UK companies do not sell into the EU. And those that do can choose to produce widgets to specification.
What percentage of the workforce is employed by companies that sell into the EU?
What percentage of Corporation Tax is raised from companies that sell into the EU?
Charles and the guys this morning are worried that their local newsagents are being weighed down by EU directives. And don't seem to care for those companies which contribute to the 44% of our exports which go to the EU, because although you may say that 44% is "nearly half", it is apparently declining.
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
Using the threat of WAR!!! and the graves of those who gave their lives in WWI & WWII says it all.
This is also historically profoundly ignorant. Britain has for centuries fought to prevent any European country dominating. It's been our (very successful) foreign policy since before Henry VIII. We've spent blood and treasure for centuries fighting against any emerging European superstate - be it Napoleon, the Nazis, Spain or whoever. Our 20th century war dead were not sacrificing themselves to promote a unified European state but to prevent one! I find Dave's co-opting of those who fought FOR BRITAIN in the cause of his aim to facilitate an EU supersate a bit disgusting frankly.
(BTW my great uncle Patrick - after whom I was named coz my mum loved him very much - was an RAMC officer in WW2 and the first doctor into Belsen. He never liked Europe much as I recall - to the extent that if an innocent German family tried mooring their yacht next to his he'd throw a major wobbly. Sadly he's gone now but I know he'd have been a firm Leaver. His war traumas weren't given to promote Dave's shitty agenda).
I clearly agree with your view that Dave had no hope of getting a deal negotiated. I clearly differ from you enormously in thinking the right thing to do now is commit to being part of a United States of Europe.
Vote Leave.
Well, I certainly don't think that the right thing to do is commit to being part of a United States of Europe. But it is certainly true that some people - over-represented here - had absurdly over-optimistic expectations of the renegotiation. There was never the slightest possibility of the EU abandoning central principles such as freedom of movement.
The same people tend to have absurdly over-optimistic views on what we could get in a negotiation with our EU friends post-Brexit, and on what we could get in free trade agreements with other countries. That's why they were so angry at Obama pointing out some basic home truths.
So basically you're saying that we're stuck where we are and can't get out and have to accept everything the EU does in future. A bit 1984 that - foot stamping on a face for all eternity
No, I'm saying that it takes two (or 28 in this case) to negotiate. You don't get to list your demands and expect the other side to accept them without demur.
Of course, that's equally true in respect of any of the free trade agreements the Leavers used to be so keen to tell us was one of the big advantages of Brexit. Wanna deal with the US? Then open up the health-care sector to US suppliers.
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
On the plus side, at least we'll only have to share our drastically diminished wealth amongst the few survivors of World War Leave.
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
Written by the guy with other classics like:-
"Immigration is good for economic growth"
"A Budget for Hard-working Poles"
and
"We either cut immigration or have a properly staffed NHS"
And yet according to the FT journalist who followed the lead up to the negotiations and who was interviewed for WaO on Radio 4, limits on freedom of movement is exactly the position Cameron was pursuing until perhaps 24 hours before his speech. The journalist effectively backed exactly what IDS claimed this morning.
Well, I wasn't there, so I can't comment. I did say at the time that I was surprised Cameron didn't get more concessions on benefits. But what does that show? It shows that our EU friends - especially those in Eastern Europe - thought that this was a key point for them. That's not going to change if we leave. Therefore, if we want full access to the Single Market, we'll be up against exactly the same problem.
No No No No No.
You clearly don't understand how much more influence and leverage we will have over the single market if we are outside it seeking access, rather than a member.
Just like whereas we can't negotiate favourable trade deals in the 28-member EU we nevertheless fancy our chances with the 162-member WTO.
Interesting to see Trump still getting big crowds in in West Virginia, even though he is the only candidate left in the race.
The Trump Experience is the show of the year, or even the decade.
Trump is NOT the only candidate left in the race - and he still needs those delegates. The voting slips will still have Rubio/ Kasich/ Cruz/ Florina etc as options - look at the actual votes cast recently and you will still see Bush getting a few votes.
NIESR: By 2030, we estimate that real consumer wages would be between 2.2 per cent and 7.0 per cent lower outside the EU than they would be remaining in the EU.
NIESR: By 2030, we estimate that real consumer wages would be between 2.2 per cent and 7.0 per cent lower outside the EU than they would be remaining in the EU.
NIESR: By 2030, we estimate that real consumer wages would be between 2.2 per cent and 7.0 per cent lower outside the EU than they would be remaining in the EU.
Pah!
Yet more pro-EU scaremongering, Richard. How could they possibly KNOW such a thing?
NIESR: By 2030, we estimate that real consumer wages would be between 2.2 per cent and 7.0 per cent lower outside the EU than they would be remaining in the EU.
Pah!
Typical LEAVE attitude to reasoned argument. You might have included a death threat, though. People do pay attention to them.
I find Dave's co-opting of those who fought FOR BRITAIN in the cause of his aim to facilitate an EU supersate a bit disgusting frankly.
So it's just the idea that these people are being co-opted for Remain rather than the general principle of using the dead to aid one's cause that you find disgusting? In fact co-opting the dead in aid of Leave is in fact a good thing?
I find Dave's co-opting of those who fought FOR BRITAIN in the cause of his aim to facilitate an EU supersate a bit disgusting frankly.
So it's just the idea that these people are being co-opted for Remain rather than the general principle of using the dead to aid one's cause that you find disgusting? In fact co-opting the dead in aid of Leave is in fact a good thing?
Luftwaffe = The EU RAF = LEAVE Fifth Columnists = REMAIN
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
2030? As always, it is complete and utter bullshit. I can accept the 2017 forecast but anything beyond that is not really worth anything.
Interesting to see Trump still getting big crowds in in West Virginia, even though he is the only candidate left in the race.
The Trump Experience is the show of the year, or even the decade.
Trump is NOT the only candidate left in the race - and he still needs those delegates. The voting slips will still have Rubio/ Kasich/ Cruz/ Florina etc as options - look at the actual votes cast recently and you will still see Bush getting a few votes.
The number of Cruz/Kasich votes will now drop to Bush like levels though.
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
2030? As always, it is complete and utter bullshit. I can accept the 2017 forecast but anything beyond that is not really worth anything.
Max you seem to be a financial services kind of guy. What happens when an analysts report plonks on your desk on the energy or infrastructure sector? You pay (the industry pays) smart people to think smartly on possible outcomes, and therefore valuations, with no doubt scenario analysis on either side of the base case together with supporting analysis of why that is the base case.
And yet a different bunch of smart people make a similarly smart set of assumptions and you ignore their >18 months out views ...
Good piece of analysis, Mr Meeks. It confirms my view that Cameron is a lousy negotiator and, at least as far as the EU is concerned, strategist. Being tone-deaf to the negotiating environment and the interests/values of the other parties is no way to maximize one's own outcome.
15 years of economic policy being implemented to benefit the UK. 15 years of the increasing influence of the EU over economic policy. One surely cannot really believe that the former will result in a significantly worse position than the latter. Should Switzerland or Norway have joined 15 years ago? Should they bollocks.
i think mark carney could get a job at an investment bank or hedge fund or private equity shop paying $5m a year tomorrow, irrespective of his views on brexit
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
So the economy still grows next year, even with Brexit? Fantastic. We can vote Leave without fear of loss.
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
2030? As always, it is complete and utter bullshit. I can accept the 2017 forecast but anything beyond that is not really worth anything.
Max you seem to be a financial services kind of guy. What happens when an analysts report plonks on your desk on the energy or infrastructure sector? You pay (the industry pays) smart people to think smartly on possible outcomes, and therefore valuations, with no doubt scenario analysis on either side of the base case together with supporting analysis of why that is the base case.
And yet a different bunch of smart people make a similarly smart set of assumptions and you ignore their >18 months out views ...
Difference in degree of the complexity of the two scenarios (and hence confidence intervals), the types and complexity/interrelatedness of the decisions that have to be made based on the analysis, and the consequences of getting the bet wrong. Ultimately, in an investment, provided NPV is positive, you're not going to get too much shit. Big difference in growth of 1% annually versus 2% on budgets and services and hence political consequences.
Interesting to see Trump still getting big crowds in in West Virginia, even though he is the only candidate left in the race.
The Trump Experience is the show of the year, or even the decade.
Trump is NOT the only candidate left in the race - and he still needs those delegates. The voting slips will still have Rubio/ Kasich/ Cruz/ Florina etc as options - look at the actual votes cast recently and you will still see Bush getting a few votes.
The number of Cruz/Kasich votes will now drop to Bush like levels though.
No doubt - but he still has to go through the motions, if only to show everyone he still cares.
"Despite these data, inflationary pressures and the risk of rising inflationary expectations mean that there is no room to reduce interest rates, and that an increase may be needed."
Don't agree with much of the article. Having been stung by the unfair "cast-iron promise" "Lisbon retreat" accusations previously, and having made the referendum pledge a central promise in his 2015 manifesto, I don't blame him for wanting to get it done and dusted and out of the way - I genuinely do feel he wanted to make a major renegotiation per the Bloomberg speech, and misguidedly thought it achievable, but was then left with a sow's ear of a negotiation and nowhere else to go.
His party (and UKIP) would have torn him to bits if this was still dragging on, almost inevitably never to happen.
NIESR: By 2030, we estimate that real consumer wages would be between 2.2 per cent and 7.0 per cent lower outside the EU than they would be remaining in the EU.
Pah!
Typical LEAVE attitude to reasoned argument. You might have included a death threat, though. People do pay attention to them.
Please - Government GDP forecasts and results are amended between the Autumn statement and the March budget.
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
2030? As always, it is complete and utter bullshit. I can accept the 2017 forecast but anything beyond that is not really worth anything.
Max you seem to be a financial services kind of guy. What happens when an analysts report plonks on your desk on the energy or infrastructure sector? You pay (the industry pays) smart people to think smartly on possible outcomes, and therefore valuations, with no doubt scenario analysis on either side of the base case together with supporting analysis of why that is the base case.
And yet a different bunch of smart people make a similarly smart set of assumptions and you ignore their >18 months out views ...
Difference in degree of the complexity of the two scenarios (and hence confidence intervals), the types and complexity/interrelatedness of the decisions that have to be made based on the analysis, and the consequences of getting the bet wrong. Ultimately, in an investment, provided NPV is positive, you're not going to get too much shit. Big difference in growth of 1% annually versus 2% on budgets and services and hence political consequences.
I wouldn't dispute that. My point was I am betting here that the NIESR has not overlooked most of the points you or others might make about the difference between a company's NPV and the potential economic impact of Brexit.
Spot on I would say Mr Meeks, and its not often I agree entirely with one of your posts
One could add that with an extra six month to take soundings and woo other european leaders its entirely likely he would have got a better deal later in the year, at the very least it would look a lot less rushed and he would be far less susceptible to attacks that he took the first thing on offer and ran for it. Didn't Sir Lynton advise him to go for a later referendum with more negotiating... perhaps he should listen to the advisors he is paying for.
I see Leave is banging on about immigration today.
As with the nonsense over £350m a week for hospitals, Leave is promising something it cannot deliver and which is probably not realistically deliverable.
The people who lead Vote Leave are not the people who will be running the country post 23 June. Or indeed probably ever.
Vote Leave needs to caveat its pledges by saying "if we leave and a future Government wishes to divorce ourselves completely from Europe and adopt a completely isolationist approach, then this could be achieveable..." - but they won't, obviously.
We saw it with the Scottish referendum and the pie in the sky promises from Yes, which irked so many of those on here who now promise the earth in the name of Leave.....
Max you seem to be a financial services kind of guy. What happens when an analysts report plonks on your desk on the energy or infrastructure sector? You pay (the industry pays) smart people to think smartly on possible outcomes, and therefore valuations, with no doubt scenario analysis on either side of the base case together with supporting analysis of why that is the base case.
And yet a different bunch of smart people make a similarly smart set of assumptions and you ignore their >18 months out views ...
Well specific to those industries there are trends which can be easily extrapolated since power stations have decommission dates and new capacity additions require investment that have to be paid for, you can probably do a 5-7 year projection for energy requirements and be fairly accurate. As for infrastructure, again, it is an investment intensive industry so we can fairly project 2-3 years in advance based on private and public investments made currently and I would say we can do a reasonable projection for the next 5-8 years for air travel and rail travel based on long term growth rates.
GDP is similar to neither of these though, the complexity of the figure is such that even calculating it a year in advance is fraught with danger, even calculating based on already available data isn't exactly easy, the ONS variance on announced annual growth is around +/- 0.3%, how one can take seriously a figure projected out to 2030 with any kind of certainty is beyond my understanding. Honestly, I would be saying the same if NIESR had projected Brexit as a net gain by 2030, we just can't say this far out what the nation or the world is going to look like in 2030. In 2002 could people have predicted that Nokia would no longer be present in the mobile market or that Apple would be dominant in 14 years time? Any analyst who made that prediction would have been out of a job or a very rich person by now.
Max you seem to be a financial services kind of guy. What happens when an analysts report plonks on your desk on the energy or infrastructure sector? You pay (the industry pays) smart people to think smartly on possible outcomes, and therefore valuations, with no doubt scenario analysis on either side of the base case together with supporting analysis of why that is the base case.
And yet a different bunch of smart people make a similarly smart set of assumptions and you ignore their >18 months out views ...
Well specific to those industries there are trends which can be easily extrapolated since power stations have decommission dates and new capacity additions require investment that have to be paid for, you can probably do a 5-7 year projection for energy requirements and be fairly accurate. As for infrastructure, again, it is an investment intensive industry so we can fairly project 2-3 years in advance based on private and public investments made currently and I would say we can do a reasonable projection for the next 5-8 years for air travel and rail travel based on long term growth rates.
GDP is similar to neither of these though, the complexity of the figure is such that even calculating it a year in advance is fraught with danger, even calculating based on already available data isn't exactly easy, the ONS variance on announced annual growth is around +/- 0.3%, how one can take seriously a figure projected out to 2030 with any kind of certainty is beyond my understanding. Honestly, I would be saying the same if NIESR had projected Brexit as a net gain by 2030, we just can't say this far out what the nation or the world is going to look like in 2030. In 2002 could people have predicted that Nokia would no longer be present in the mobile market or that Apple would be dominant in 14 years time? Any analyst who made that prediction would have been out of a job or a very rich person by now.
Well of course GDP is often taken as a proxy for energy consumption growth in those power station forecasts..
But no of course we can't say for sure, but I think it is legitimate for eg. NIESR (and the others) to make a stab at it. I'm sure the variance of GDP estimates accounts for much of the uncertainty, as it is pretty wide.
But aside from whether it's broadly or directionally right, has there been a sensible forecast (apart from Patrick "let's abolish our tariffs" Minford's) which does forecast growth?
Wanna deal with the US? Then open up the health-care sector to US suppliers.
And why not, provided that it is reciprocal? Their health sector is considerably larger (10x: GDP is 5x, % of GDP spent on health is 2x) and more inefficient. UK providers should make a killing.
The NIESR has issued its assessment of the economic impact of Brexit: • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain.
The UK has not achieved a GDP growth rate as high as 2.7% since 2006... Last 12 months circa 2.1% and is slowing since December 2015.
What matters is gdp per capita growth. A 450k increase in population required 0.75% gdp growth just to stand still.
Wanna deal with the US? Then open up the health-care sector to US suppliers.
And why not, provided that it is reciprocal? Their health sector is considerably larger (10x: GDP is 5x, % of GDP spent on health is 2x) and more inefficient. UK providers should make a killing.
GSK.l should indeed do well if the US market is properly opened up...
Max you seem to be a financial services kind of guy. What happens when an analysts report plonks on your desk on the energy or infrastructure sector? You pay (the industry pays) smart people to think smartly on possible outcomes, and therefore valuations, with no doubt scenario analysis on either side of the base case together with supporting analysis of why that is the base case.
And yet a different bunch of smart people make a similarly smart set of assumptions and you ignore their >18 months out views ...
Well specific to those industries there are trends which can be easily extrapolated since power stations have decommission dates and new capacity additions require investment that have to be paid for, you can probably do a 5-7 year projection for energy requirements and be fairly accurate. As for infrastructure, again, it is an investment intensive industry so we can fairly project 2-3 years in advance based on private and public investments made currently and I would say we can do a reasonable projection for the next 5-8 years for air travel and rail travel based on long term growth rates.
GDP is similar to neither of these though, the complexity of the figure is such that even calculating it a year in advance is fraught with danger, even calculating based on already available data isn't exactly easy, the ONS variance on announced annual growth is around +/- 0.3%, how one can take seriously a figure projected out to 2030 with any kind of certainty is beyond my understanding. Honestly, I would be saying the same if NIESR had projected Brexit as a net gain by 2030, we just can't say this far out what the nation or the world is going to look like in 2030. In 2002 could people have predicted that Nokia would no longer be present in the mobile market or that Apple would be dominant in 14 years time? Any analyst who made that prediction would have been out of a job or a very rich person by now.
Well of course GDP is often taken as a proxy for energy consumption growth in those power station forecasts..
But no of course we can't say for sure, but I think it is legitimate for eg. NIESR (and the others) to make a stab at it. I'm sure the variance of GDP estimates accounts for much of the uncertainty, as it is pretty wide.
But aside from whether it's broadly or directionally right, has there been a sensible forecast (apart from Patrick "let's abolish our tariffs" Minford's) which does forecast growth?
No, there hasn't. The OBR have been as useless as the treasury in forecasting GDP beyond a year. The IMF are no better. If GDP projection was possible then the people who could do it wouldn't waste their time working for the OBR or NIESR!
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain. • In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain. • Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030. • By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
2030? As always, it is complete and utter bullshit. I can accept the 2017 forecast but anything beyond that is not really worth anything.
Max you seem to be a financial services kind of guy. What happens when an analysts report plonks on your desk on the energy or infrastructure sector? You pay (the industry pays) smart people to think smartly on possible outcomes, and therefore valuations, with no doubt scenario analysis on either side of the base case together with supporting analysis of why that is the base case.
And yet a different bunch of smart people make a similarly smart set of assumptions and you ignore their >18 months out views ...
Difference in degree of the complexity of the two scenarios (and hence confidence intervals), the types and complexity/interrelatedness of the decisions that have to be made based on the analysis, and the consequences of getting the bet wrong. Ultimately, in an investment, provided NPV is positive, you're not going to get too much shit. Big difference in growth of 1% annually versus 2% on budgets and services and hence political consequences.
I wouldn't dispute that. My point was I am betting here that the NIESR has not overlooked most of the points you or others might make about the difference between a company's NPV and the potential economic impact of Brexit.
I grant your points too, but it still does not mean we should place too much confidence in macroeconomic forecasts beyond a year or two. The confidence intervals get so large they are little more than mental masturbation.
The NIESR has issued its assessment of the economic impact of Brexit: • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain.
The UK has not achieved a GDP growth rate as high as 2.7% since 2006... Last 12 months circa 2.1% and is slowing since December 2015.
What matters is gdp per capita grouwth. A 450k increase in population required 0.75% gdp growth just to stand still.
Consensus forecasts for UK growth in 2017 are about 2.3-2.4% now. So NIESR's baseline looks oddly high.
The NIESR has issued its assessment of the economic impact of Brexit: • In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain.
The UK has not achieved a GDP growth rate as high as 2.7% since 2006... Last 12 months circa 2.1% and is slowing since December 2015.
What matters is gdp per capita grouwth. A 450k increase in population required 0.75% gdp growth just to stand still.
Consensus forecasts for UK growth in 2017 are about 2.3-2.4% now. So NIESR's baseline looks oddly high.
UK growth was 2.85% in 2014 though
Looks like bullshit - had a brief look for UK growth rates from last 60 years, only found 3 quarters with rates higher than that.
Wanna deal with the US? Then open up the health-care sector to US suppliers.
And why not, provided that it is reciprocal? Their health sector is considerably larger (10x: GDP is 5x, % of GDP spent on health is 2x) and more inefficient. UK providers should make a killing.
Why not indeed? I'm all in favour, personally. Let's hope we get TTIP in place, which would be even better than a bilateral UK-US deal - full access to the Single Market AND better access to the US markets AND the UK becoming even more of a gateway for the US into continental Europe than it currently is.
However, all these still involve a loss of 'sovereignty'. Leavers seem to have this odd idea that Brexit means we can decide these things entirely ourselves without troubling to ask what our counterparties might want.
What does seem clear is that these claims are damaging for the remain campaign. Whilst it’s not surprising that allies such as Germany and the UK would work together in these sort of negotiations, what makes the suggestion of Germany’s influence toxic is the way in which the renegotiations won by the Prime Minister have been entirely sidelined by the Government.
After striking the deal back in February, David Cameron said the UK would be guaranteed ‘special status’. But since then, despite almost relentless campaigning about every part of the EU question, we’ve heard next to nothing about the renegotiation package itself.
i think mark carney could get a job at an investment bank or hedge fund or private equity shop paying $5m a year tomorrow, irrespective of his views on brexit
I see Leave is banging on about immigration today.
As with the nonsense over £350m a week for hospitals, Leave is promising something it cannot deliver and which is probably not realistically deliverable.
The people who lead Vote Leave are not the people who will be running the country post 23 June. Or indeed probably ever.
Vote Leave needs to caveat its pledges by saying "if we leave and a future Government wishes to divorce ourselves completely from Europe and adopt a completely isolationist approach, then this could be achieveable..." - but they won't, obviously.
We saw it with the Scottish referendum and the pie in the sky promises from Yes, which irked so many of those on here who now promise the earth in the name of Leave.....
I think just about all the rest of the population (apparently except you) have figured out the difference between the government they elected at the general election, who they expect to keep until 2020, and a pressure group formed to push one side of the EU referendum.
Leave dont have to make any promises for after the referendum at all, they are not going to be the ones implementing it, I would be surprised if any of their leaders end up as the PM as well. They are here to procure a divorce, it is up to the elected government of the day to decide who they want to marry next, and if they want to keep on good terms with the ex.
I see the social [in]justice twitter warriors have done their nut over the fact a mock suicide bomber was "stigmatized" as Muslim in an anti-terror exercise in Manchester.
I see the social [in]justice twitter warriors have done their nut over the fact a mock suicide bomber was "stigmatized" as Muslim in an anti-terror exercise in Manchester.
The mormons haven't been lighting themselves up recently so far as I can see .
Meeks has come to the conclusion, belatedly, that Cameron has lost it. Lost his cool, lost his argument, lost his mind, and maybe has lost some of the Remain vote, and as a consequence will lose the Referendum.
I see the social [in]justice twitter warriors have done their nut over the fact a mock suicide bomber was "stigmatized" as Muslim in an anti-terror exercise in Manchester.
The mormons haven't been lighting themselves up recently so far as I can see .
Having been to Salt Lake City, they are more likely to bore you to death than anything else.
I see the social [in]justice twitter warriors have done their nut over the fact a mock suicide bomber was "stigmatized" as Muslim in an anti-terror exercise in Manchester.
The mormons haven't been lighting themselves up recently so far as I can see .
Sales of suicide belts amongst Baptists have also been slow.
In October 2008 NIESR predicted that the UK economy would contract by 0.9% the following year.
Why anyone pays much attention to economic forecasts is beyond me, which organisation has a deserved good reputation for medium to long term forecasts? I can't think of any. And as you point out the "great and the good" frequently fall to spotting oncoming catastrophes.
I see the social [in]justice twitter warriors have done their nut over the fact a mock suicide bomber was "stigmatized" as Muslim in an anti-terror exercise in Manchester.
The mormons haven't been lighting themselves up recently so far as I can see .
Sales of suicide belts amongst Baptists have also been slow.
Next time they will probably do a terrorist exercise with Buddhists, just to be PC.
I once spent a few weeks working with a client in Provo, Utah. Nearly all Mormons, of course. I was expecting them to be terribly strait-laced and dull; in fact they were great fun.
Mind you, working 14-hour days with no coffee and and having to survive on caffeine-free diet Coke was a bit tough.
I think that phenomenon rather undermines Alastair's argument. There are few things more important for the EU than whether their second largest economy and second largest net contributor wants to be there or not. That is particularly the case when one considers the real risk that other countries may choose to follow suit if the answer is no.
At the moment the EU is facing a series of crises. One is immigration but another is its very existence. The argument about the future existence of the EU will not be determined in the UK but it will be a very, very important battle.
And from Cameron's point of view allowing immigration further up the agenda would have been playing with disaster. We have already seen suggestions that Member States who fail to meet their obligations in terms of accepting refugees might be fined to fund the States stuck with them. How on earth was Cameron going to get a Remain vote if that was voted through?
Instead we have had the apparently successful deal with Turkey. It cost a lot of Danegeld but it does seem to have abated at least the eastern flood. It also indicates that the insistence of the UK deal did not stop anything else being agreed. The southern flood from Africa continues to flow however.
Finally it is worth remembering that Cameron's call to arms for reform in his Bloomberg speech was on 23rd January 2013. It is not as if he sprung this on them at the last moment. There were 2 years of negotiations. 2 years,....that rings a bell somewhere.
Is Boris saying that outside the single market in, say, widgets, we wouldn't have to accept the one-size-fits-all regulations? We could have our very own widget regulations and not be subject to those very same regulations? But what if we wanted to sell widgets to the EU?
And do you think businesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
Generally big business prefers one-size fits all regulations because that allows them to use regulation as a barrier to entry. They also like a single global standard, if possible, because that benefits volume producers (i.e. large players)
SMEs prefer flexibility because that enables them to be opportunistic about their strategy.
Of course if we want to sell widgets into the EU market, then we have to comply with widget standards for that market. But the vast majority of UK companies do not sell into the EU. And those that do can choose to produce widgets to specification.
What percentage of the workforce is employed by companies that sell into the EU?
What percentage of Corporation Tax is raised from companies that sell into the EU?
I recall somewhere seeing that 6% of UK companies sell into the EU (that's from memory so may be wrong) and will obviously be depressed by the mom and pop stores that are companies
The SME sector as a whole is 60% of employment - I suspect that EU exports are disproportionately weighted towards the larger multinationals
Corporation tax is much less important - unless you think that the EU facilitating Luxembourg based dodges is a good thing because you can't disaggregate the EU element. But the total raised was £39bn (2013/14) vs £265bn from employment taxes (income tax + NICs).
Good piece of analysis, Mr Meeks. It confirms my view that Cameron is a lousy negotiator and, at least as far as the EU is concerned, strategist. Being tone-deaf to the negotiating environment and the interests/values of the other parties is no way to maximize one's own outcome.
Yep ..... that's why I'm voting LEAVE. Not only did Cameron get a lousy rushed deal (if indeed one can call it a deal, given the EU's wriggle room), but he then has the temerity to try to kid us that it's a great deal, effectively treating us like fools. Well, sorry, but he's been caught out and it will finish him.
One wonders if Liz often privately despairs at the quality of the current crop of politicians.
Is it me or does it sound like he says bleeders instead of leaders?
This is just another ridiculous scoop for the low-level media we have now. Did they really have to embarrass the Queen, PM and this country (not necessarily in that order) just to get a cheap headline?
Comments
By contrast, the UK gave India £279 million for the whole YEAR (again, 2015).
Conversely, if we Leave, and don't sign up to an EEA-style deal, then the economic hit will be larger, but we'll have more control on migration. As long as people understand the trade-off, that's a legitimate choice to make.
Okayyyy.
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/media/economic-impact-leaving-eu-12503#.VzHgop1wbct
• A vote to leave the EU would represent a significant shock to the UK economy
• In the short run, our analysis suggests it would lower GDP growth to 1.9 per cent in 2017, compared with a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in a world in which the UK voted to remain.
• In the longer run, our analysis suggests that it would lower GDP by between 1.5 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, also compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain.
• Sterling would also depreciate in the longer-run, to close to parity with the euro by 2030.
• By 2030, consumption would fall by between 2.4 per cent and 9.2 per cent compared to a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This translates into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £500 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices) by 2030.
(BTW my great uncle Patrick - after whom I was named coz my mum loved him very much - was an RAMC officer in WW2 and the first doctor into Belsen. He never liked Europe much as I recall - to the extent that if an innocent German family tried mooring their yacht next to his he'd throw a major wobbly. Sadly he's gone now but I know he'd have been a firm Leaver. His war traumas weren't given to promote Dave's shitty agenda).
Of course, that's equally true in respect of any of the free trade agreements the Leavers used to be so keen to tell us was one of the big advantages of Brexit. Wanna deal with the US? Then open up the health-care sector to US suppliers.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
Written by the guy with other classics like:-
"Immigration is good for economic growth"
"A Budget for Hard-working Poles"
and
"We either cut immigration or have a properly staffed NHS"
You clearly don't understand how much more influence and leverage we will have over the single market if we are outside it seeking access, rather than a member.
Just like whereas we can't negotiate favourable trade deals in the 28-member EU we nevertheless fancy our chances with the 162-member WTO.
Simple, innit.
Parity with the Euro in 14 years time...if we are lucky...
and 7.0 per cent lower outside the EU than they would be remaining in the EU.
Pah!
Nah!
RAF = LEAVE
Fifth Columnists = REMAIN
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279233-state-dept-claims-to-have-no-emails-from-clinton-it-aide
State Department have 'lost' all the emails sent to and from the man who set up Clinton's server - four years' worth.
"Crooked Hillary"
Max you seem to be a financial services kind of guy. What happens when an analysts report plonks on your desk on the energy or infrastructure sector? You pay (the industry pays) smart people to think smartly on possible outcomes, and therefore valuations, with no doubt scenario analysis on either side of the base case together with supporting analysis of why that is the base case.
And yet a different bunch of smart people make a similarly smart set of assumptions and you ignore their >18 months out views ...
The long-term 2030 numbers are bollocks.
"Despite these data, inflationary pressures and the risk of rising inflationary expectations mean that there is no room to reduce interest rates, and that an increase may be needed."
July 2008
His party (and UKIP) would have torn him to bits if this was still dragging on, almost inevitably never to happen.
Have you never heard of Chaos Theory?
One could add that with an extra six month to take soundings and woo other european leaders its entirely likely he would have got a better deal later in the year, at the very least it would look a lot less rushed and he would be far less susceptible to attacks that he took the first thing on offer and ran for it. Didn't Sir Lynton advise him to go for a later referendum with more negotiating... perhaps he should listen to the advisors he is paying for.
As with the nonsense over £350m a week for hospitals, Leave is promising something it cannot deliver and which is probably not realistically deliverable.
The people who lead Vote Leave are not the people who will be running the country post 23 June. Or indeed probably ever.
Vote Leave needs to caveat its pledges by saying "if we leave and a future Government wishes to divorce ourselves completely from Europe and adopt a completely isolationist approach, then this could be achieveable..." - but they won't, obviously.
We saw it with the Scottish referendum and the pie in the sky promises from Yes, which irked so many of those on here who now promise the earth in the name of Leave.....
GDP is similar to neither of these though, the complexity of the figure is such that even calculating it a year in advance is fraught with danger, even calculating based on already available data isn't exactly easy, the ONS variance on announced annual growth is around +/- 0.3%, how one can take seriously a figure projected out to 2030 with any kind of certainty is beyond my understanding. Honestly, I would be saying the same if NIESR had projected Brexit as a net gain by 2030, we just can't say this far out what the nation or the world is going to look like in 2030. In 2002 could people have predicted that Nokia would no longer be present in the mobile market or that Apple would be dominant in 14 years time? Any analyst who made that prediction would have been out of a job or a very rich person by now.
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/730031637027794944
But no of course we can't say for sure, but I think it is legitimate for eg. NIESR (and the others) to make a stab at it. I'm sure the variance of GDP estimates accounts for much of the uncertainty, as it is pretty wide.
But aside from whether it's broadly or directionally right, has there been a sensible forecast (apart from Patrick "let's abolish our tariffs" Minford's) which does forecast growth?
What matters is gdp per capita growth. A 450k increase in population required 0.75% gdp growth just to stand still.
UK growth was 2.85% in 2014 though
I don’t believe that someone as decent and intelligent as AJ would use such abusive language unless he was seriously worried about losing.
However, all these still involve a loss of 'sovereignty'. Leavers seem to have this odd idea that Brexit means we can decide these things entirely ourselves without troubling to ask what our counterparties might want.
Leave dont have to make any promises for after the referendum at all, they are not going to be the ones implementing it, I would be surprised if any of their leaders end up as the PM as well. They are here to procure a divorce, it is up to the elected government of the day to decide who they want to marry next, and if they want to keep on good terms with the ex.
I think it would be vastly entertaining !
In brown envelopes?
Corbynistas' Laura K Petition Banned Over Sexist Abuse https://t.co/j3g9YmSNdQ https://t.co/SnewEgodEk
IndyRef2Education being Nicola's No1 priority, she wants her best brains on it...rather than sacking her incompetent campaign manager who had his majority slashed at the election...
Forecasting 14 years ahead is a fool's errand.
Mind you, working 14-hour days with no coffee and and having to survive on caffeine-free diet Coke was a bit tough.
Just saying. On this Dave is right.
At the moment the EU is facing a series of crises. One is immigration but another is its very existence. The argument about the future existence of the EU will not be determined in the UK but it will be a very, very important battle.
And from Cameron's point of view allowing immigration further up the agenda would have been playing with disaster. We have already seen suggestions that Member States who fail to meet their obligations in terms of accepting refugees might be fined to fund the States stuck with them. How on earth was Cameron going to get a Remain vote if that was voted through?
Instead we have had the apparently successful deal with Turkey. It cost a lot of Danegeld but it does seem to have abated at least the eastern flood. It also indicates that the insistence of the UK deal did not stop anything else being agreed. The southern flood from Africa continues to flow however.
Finally it is worth remembering that Cameron's call to arms for reform in his Bloomberg speech was on 23rd January 2013. It is not as if he sprung this on them at the last moment. There were 2 years of negotiations. 2 years,....that rings a bell somewhere.
The SME sector as a whole is 60% of employment - I suspect that EU exports are disproportionately weighted towards the larger multinationals
Corporation tax is much less important - unless you think that the EU facilitating Luxembourg based dodges is a good thing because you can't disaggregate the EU element. But the total raised was £39bn (2013/14) vs £265bn from employment taxes (income tax + NICs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index