Just checking with the Outers, are opinion polls valid today or not?
And 61% say it would have a negative effect on future investment decisions relating to the UK. I imagine Leave's desire to withdraw from the single market has worried a few companies.
I'm sure a similar voodoo poll in 1992 would have said ERM exits would be 'bad for business' and in 1999-2003 that failure to join the euro would be 'bad for business' or 'negatively affect future investment decisions'. Indeed, there were some pretty high profile claims to that effect by notable firms in the latter case at least. It's not what happened in either case though.
The problem is that you are arguing from experience of the very bad things that happened on the ERM and the Euro, whilst REMAIN are ignoring the facts and arguing about forecasts of what will happen. Those who do not learn the lessons from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. The Financial Times is a classic case of an organisation that was wrong on the ERM, Euro and ...... never apologised for it.
The Electoral Commissions statement seems pretty clear. If others have done this in the past and no action has been taken then that is to be regretted. However it doesn't mean that the law can be broken with impunity in the recent election. It may be the sheer scale of the operation and the number of constituencies where spending is pushed over the limit by inclusion of the Battlebus costs that is attracting attention.
Most elections, the major parties run their expenses right up to the wire. In this instance, if there was any uncertainty as to whether the costs of a battlebus for a day were for the constituency or central funds, then the bus would have been declined. And as I say, it was only the cost of the bus for the day - the canvassers it delivered paid for their own food and accommodation.
It appears that you are incorrect: "The Conservative Party today confirmed to Channel 4 News that it had failed to declare the costs related to the Battlebus hotels due to what it described as an "administrative error" despite previously stating that all of the party's returns were accurate." http://www.channel4.com/news/battlebus-conservatives-admit-election-expenses
Worth a read from the Economist 2011. History Repeating?
The nature of establishment opinion - When elites get it wrong
" British elites have been very wrong about something very important in each of the last three decades. First, in the 1980s, it was Thatcherism. Privatisation, flexible labour markets and non-punitive tax rates are the common sense of our times, but Thatcherism was, at least at the turn of the 1980s, disdained by much of the British establishment as a transient fad propagated by a crazed fishwife from Grantham. Tory "wets" such as Ian Gilmour and Jim Prior were in line with the thinking of the civil service, the Confederation of British Industry, the universities and much of the high-brow media."
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I think the argument seems to be more the EU is neither fantastic or awful for our economy but the world will end if we Leave, so what do you prefer?
FWIW I think there is an argument for Remain (which is deepening and completing the single market in services, energy, capital markets, digital and tech - I don't believe it to be a positive economic argument at all but HMG and the suite of internationals clearly do) but HMG and BSE don't want to make it because it concedes that there will be even more integration.
So they will triple egg and chips it for the next 41 days. If that doesn't work, quintuple eggs and chips with a coronary.
If that sort of benefit’s going, I’d rather have a large glass of a good Spanish or Puglian red, please.
The national average hides London's problem. In wide parts of the country, rents are stable or have gone down. In London and a couple of other places they have skyrocketed.
They have, but no more so than in many other major global cities.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
yebbut...Dave got his opt out didn't he. We have a two-speed Europe. Closer fiscal and hence political integration on the one hand, and plucky old us on the other.
Many Leavers ISTR wanted a two-speed Europe, well we have one. We can cite any old measure as being part of Ever Closer Union, point to our Feb 2016 deal and say uh-uh.
Christine Lagarde of the IMF is forecasting widespread economic collapse here is we leave the EU. Pestilence to follow, of course. However, that also includes a collapse in house prices.
As I have no intention of selling my house I don’t much mind about that, although no doubt my heirs will. But, would a collapse in house-prices really be a bad thing? Might enable some young people .... eg my two 20-something grandchildren to get a house. Something which at the moment appears very difficult.
In abstract terms, I totally agree. In reality, though, a lot of people have staked a lot of their current and future plans on high house prices - the government included. As a result, a big fall in values is likely tonprove very damaging. We've got ourselves into a real mess on this.
The theme, I think, is that Leave represents risk. It's a theme that the Leave camp are not counteracting for whatever reason. Risk isn't necessarily a bad thing, but bear in mind this is a gambling site which is by its nature is about calculating risk. Most voters probably just want to be left alone. Risk isn't attractive to them.
The national average hides London's problem. In wide parts of the country, rents are stable or have gone down. In London and a couple of other places they have skyrocketed.
They have, but no more so than in many other major global cities.
Those places also have a housing crisis. It's not either/or.
Just look at how well the IMF forecast Greece's economic performance in 2010
Greece 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 GDP growth IMF forecast -4 -2.6 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 GDP growth actual -5.5 -9.2 -7.3 -3.1 0.7 -0.3
Cumulative forecast error 2010-15: 24% of GDP.
Yes, that's right - they were wrong by **one quarter of the economy** over a six year window. Close, eh?
I am not sure voters will see Greece doing even worse* than the IMF projected as a reason for ignoring their warnings this time. Rightly or wrongly IMF will carry considerable weight. In the minds of those that were around in the seventies, the IMF is something of a bogeyman as Britain had to go cap in hand. They will want to stay well away from the IMF, even if it is a conflated thought.
In truth, none of the "OK names" are coming out for Brexit on the economics. The nearest probably is fund manager Peter Hargreaves who gets a listen simply because he made lots of money. He touts Brexit as being like Dunkirk and talks of the "fantastic insecurity" that comes from leaving the EU. Voters will be conscious that there are degrees of insecurity and the insecurity of a billionaire who can tap into his vast financial resources is different from the insecurity of the masses that are struggling to make ends meet.
* To be fair the perennial optimists at IMF did revise the near term figures downwards as the Greek reality hit. It was always "jam tomorrow"
There are plenty of good economists who favour Brexit or at least would agree (even if only in private) that the Davos Consensus View on Brexit is wildly exaggerated. Just as the Davos Consensus View on Greece was utterly wrong.
By 'OK names' you presumably mean the IMF/OECD etc.
There is not a chance in hell they would publicly support something like Brexit even if they thought it was economically OK. That is not the way these organisations work - they are creatures of the governments that fund them. I'm sure you know that.
@gabyhinsliff: We're never ever going to hear the last of Euref. 20 yrs of Brexiters moaning they'd have won if not for BBC/Peston/Carney/The Establishment
If it gets harder to hold conferences in Barcelona, we'll hold them elsewhere in the world. As a shareholder, I won't lose out. The company's London employees may though.
You mentioned something like this before, Mr. Observer, and I was confused then but not in a position to ask, perhaps I may now.
We do not have a single market with Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, or the USA, but I think you identified these a growth areas for your business. If we were to lose single market access with Spain then holding a conference in Barcelona would be no different, except for local rules and taxes, than holding a conference in Hong Kong etc..
I am lost as to why you would shift your business to places where we have never had access to a single market away from a place where we no longer have access to such. Could it be that the costs of doing business in the EU is that much higher than doing business in the wider world, and that there are in fact more customers in the wider world, that any increase in costs would make the EU unviable for your business?
The Named Person scheme that the Ruth Davidson party never shuts up about. Tories abstained and Labour voted for when the bill to roll it out throughout Scotland came up at Holyrood, and now it comes to light that a Tory council propped up by Labour has "run 'Named Person' scheme for 5 years without problems".
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
Not so and you misrepresent Carswell. His position is that we should have control of our borders so we can then attract the people we want to come to Britain. This is not a 'no migration' nor an 'open migration' policy. It is the country deciding the levels and types of migration we gave that best suits our economy and our social and infrastructure constraints.
Personally it is not a huge issue for me either way but you should at least try not to misrepresent what your opponents are saying for your own ends.
You're just quibbling over the word 'open'. The fact is that under Carswell's vision there'd be as much, if not more, immigration than we have now - albeit from places like India, China, Pakistan and Russia as well as Europe. There would have to be; otherwise Leave would have to admit that Brexit would necessitate an economic slump. Actually, this is an intellectually sound position. What is dubious is Leave's playing the raise-the-drawbridge card for the Little Englanders whilst suggesting the economics can all be jolly and nice.
How did the economy grow so much faster from 1970 - 2000 than it has since 2000, when levels of immigration were much lower?
I'm not particularly decrying or praising immigration either way. My complaint is Leave's milking anti-immigration sentiment, whilst its leaders have other plans for us entirely. In fairness, Richard Tyndall seems to concede that we'll just be replacing one set of immigrants with another (or adding one set to another) but other Leavers are more cynical.
The national average hides London's problem. In wide parts of the country, rents are stable or have gone down. In London and a couple of other places they have skyrocketed.
They have, but no more so than in many other major global cities.
A friend tells me that his deceased Gran's bungalow oop north went down £50,000 in price because of a rapid influx of migrants in the area.
Another example of the way that if you put your head above the political parapet, everything you have ever said comes back to haunt you on social media (assisted by Mr Fawkes, of course):
As she admits, she once worded one sentence in a blog carelessly. And she's Jewish. Those are the only things that anyone seems to be abusing her about. She's not standing for President, she wants to be on a party committee.
Now clearly if you've said something with current dodgy resonance there is a question about whether you regret it, still half-believe it, etc., and it's reasonable to query it. Corbyn once referred to Hamas people at a meeting as friends - he's explained that he was being polite as usual and in reality disagrees with them, and people can accept it or not. Boris has had a variety of colourful incidents which could reasonably be asked about if he stands or leader.
But if we witch-hunt novices to political office with anything they ever said to anyone, then we simply discourage novices from taking part. There should, I think be an acceptance that most of us have said some silly once or twice in the past, and if we admit it and apologise and there's no evidence that we still think it, then we should be allowed to move on. Otherwise, ambitious young people are going to avoid politics altogether or turn into robots issuing cloned statements from age 12.
Do I practice what I preach? I try to. An opponent once employed someone who had posed on Facebook in a Nazi uniform with what appeared to be a real (and hence illegal) handgun in the picture. I admit I was very tempted, but in the end we decided it was (a) probably past and (b) personal, so we didn't try to embarrass either of them.
@gabyhinsliff: We're never ever going to hear the last of Euref. 20 yrs of Brexiters moaning they'd have won if not for BBC/Peston/Carney/The Establishment
The anti-establishment rebellion is only just starting. Partly because the establishment so patently exists. Just look at the list of the great and the good bankrolled with our taxes by the European commission. Just look at the way they are conspiring to influence this referendum.
On house prices, it's an article of faith that the root of the problem is that housing is in very short supply whilst demand from population growth, immigration and household fragmentation has grown rapidly. But there is one very big flaw in that argument which Albert Edwards of Société Générale (who is admittedly a bit of nutcase) has pointed out. You can see the flaw in this graph:
If the problem is shortage of supply, then rental prices should have risen rapidly in the way purchase prices have, right? But they haven't, they've remained more or less constant in real terms over the last ten years.
People are clearly living somewhere, yet the supply of new housing which in theory has been grossly inadequate doesn't seem to have made renting more expensive. It's rather mysterious.
Yes, the point that I, and a lot of other people, have been making for over a year now is that there is enough supply in the housing market, but the problem is landlords buying existing properties by leveraging themselves to the hilt and hoping for a decent capital gain after 5 years. Housing is an asset bubble like any other, it is one that has been supported by low interest rates and QE, and lately the new pension rules that allow people to cash out early. The government are moving to muscle landlords out of the market but it is far too late, the action should have come 3 or 4 years ago.
I would look at a second property value tax, 3-4% per year of the value of the property would basically make all rentals in London and the South East completely unviable and exemptions for re/develop-to-let would encourage people to invest in building new property and refurbishing existing property.
However, that is probably far too radical and it introduces taxation of property based on values which is something I understand neither the PM nor the chancellor want to introduce because a future Labour government may try and extend it to all property.
I am not sure voters will see Greece doing even worse* than the IMF projected as a reason for ignoring their warnings this time. Rightly or wrongly IMF will carry considerable weight. In the minds of those that were around in the seventies, the IMF is something of a bogeyman as Britain had to go cap in hand. They will want to stay well away from the IMF, even if it is a conflated thought.
In truth, none of the "OK names" are coming out for Brexit on the economics. The nearest probably is fund manager Peter Hargreaves who gets a listen simply because he made lots of money. He touts Brexit as being like Dunkirk and talks of the "fantastic insecurity" that comes from leaving the EU. Voters will be conscious that there are degrees of insecurity and the insecurity of a billionaire who can tap into his vast financial resources is different from the insecurity of the masses that are struggling to make ends meet.
* To be fair the perennial optimists at IMF did revise the near term figures downwards as the Greek reality hit. It was always "jam tomorrow"
------
There are plenty of good economists who favour Brexit or at least would agree (even if only in private) that the Davos Consensus View on Brexit is wildly exaggerated. Just as the Davos Consensus View on Greece was utterly wrong.
By 'OK names' you presumably mean the IMF/OECD etc.
There is not a chance in hell they would publicly support something like Brexit even if they thought it was economically OK. That is not the way these organisations work - they are creatures of the governments that fund them. I'm sure you know that.
By OK names I mean outfits or individuals whose views are rated by people who don't know anything about the subject and aren't especially interested either. They will know the IMF as a rather fearsome organisation whose opinions you respect but don't want to get closely involved with (see Greece. See us in the 1970's) If they predict dire consequences, let's stay clear.
There are plenty of positive arguments, it's just that you do not agree with them. I see the Single Market as hugely beneficial and positive. You don't.
I have never said that. I do think the Single Market is a good thing. And it worries me greatly - as I've said on here - that the official view of Vote Leave is not to be in it. The sector I'm in would be damaged if the UK were not in the Single Market.
But that is the market side of the EU - the Common Market. And if that is all it was I would be happy to Remain.
What is the positive argument for having one system of law throughout the EU - civil rather than common law? What is the positive argument for having the same criminal system with, say, the abolition of trial by jury?
Bearing in mind that we do not have a single system of civil and criminal law within the UK, why do you suggest that it is an essential part of a "European superstate"?
The anti-establishment rebellion is only just starting. Partly because the establishment so patently exists. Just look at the list of the great and the good bankrolled with our taxes by the European commission. Just look at the way they are conspiring to influence this referendum.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I think the argument seems to be more the EU is neither fantastic or awful for our economy but the world will end if we Leave, so what do you prefer?
FWIW I think there is an argument for Remain (which is deepening and completing the single market in services, energy, capital markets, digital and tech - I don't believe it to be a positive economic argument at all but HMG and the suite of internationals clearly do) but HMG and BSE don't want to make it because it concedes that there will be even more integration.
So they will triple egg and chips it for the next 41 days. If that doesn't work, quintuple eggs and chips with a coronary.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the Treasury is correct, and that outside the EU, GDP would be 31% higher than it is now, by 2030, whereas inside the EU it would be 37% higher.
Does that, honestly, matter very much?
If the population is also 10% higher with REMAIN than vs LEAVE, then per person we end up poorer if we REMAIN. An inconvenient truth.
There are plenty of positive arguments, it's just that you do not agree with them. I see the Single Market as hugely beneficial and positive. You don't.
I have never said that. I do think the Single Market is a good thing. And it worries me greatly - as I've said on here - that the official view of Vote Leave is not to be in it. The sector I'm in would be damaged if the UK were not in the Single Market.
But that is the market side of the EU - the Common Market. And if that is all it was I would be happy to Remain.
What I have not heard is the positive argument for the EU as a federal politically integrated entity, which is what has always been planned and is planned now, an entity which would to all intents and purposes abolish the nation state. What is the positive argument for that from the Remain camp?
What is the positive argument for having one system of law throughout the EU - civil rather than common law? What is the positive argument for having the same criminal system with, say, the abolition of trial by jury?
This is about more than having the ability to organise conferences in Barcelona. For the Remain camp to limit the arguments thus is to miss, fundamentally, what the EU is about.
Well yes but that is of course deliberate. By concentrating on the economics, and wildly exaggerating the economic risks, they are trying a) to distract the public from the political issues and b) scare them into pushing those issues down the list in terms of their importance.
They know perfectly well that a debate focused on the political aspects of the EU will see them lose by a landslide.
The number of EU announcements that've been held back until after the vote...
Are you a federalist? Do you believe in political union? If so, you're fully entitled to air your views.
I think Remain will win and they'll win on the 'frit' vote. In Lincolnshire, we'd usually say "frit to death". And that's the economic issue, so I can see why Remain are piling everything on this. But ten years down the line, when the population find themselves in a political union and complain that it wasn't what they wanted, they'll find little sympathy.
As the old Scottish Joke ... "Ah, God, we didna ken." And the reply comes ... "Ah, well, ye ken the noo."
So you have heard positive arguments, you just don't give them the weight pro-Remainers might.
You can't have a single market without a single set of laws governing it. For example, how can a patent or trademark be valid in one part of a single market and not in another? But that does not mean federalisation; neither does it necessiate harmonisation of all criminal law. You won't find Remainers arguing for that because they don't agree with it or believe it will happen. This referendum shows where sovereignty ultimately lies.
If it gets harder to hold conferences in Barcelona, we'll hold them elsewhere in the world. As a shareholder, I won't lose out. The company's London employees may though.
I agree. To have a single market it is not necessary to harmonise criminal law. But such harmonisation is on the cards. Why else is the EU extending its competence into such areas?
Remainers here aren't arguing for this. But they're ignoring what the EU wants and what other EU states want and what is likely to happen. It's a repeat of what has happened at every stage in the last 40 years. The EU makes proposals which are entirely in line with the political project; the UK says they won't happen; they do happen; we grumble. Rinse and repeat.
The EU is a political project with a political end in mind, which is more than a single market. It would be nice if those in favour of Remain accepted that, were open about it and set out in clear terms why us being part of such a political project is a good thing for us.
I have a friend, a pensioner, who has suffered a severe stroke and has 24 hour care. Most of these carers are immigrants from the EU, and as I understand it don’t stay more than a year. I suspect that pensioners, at any rate, attitudes to EU immigrants are rather similar to those their parents had with regard to West Indian immigration ..... “Don’t like them, but that XXX, he’s a smashing chap."
Mr. Cole, I think there is a difference between how some people feel about large scale immigration and immigrants. The first is a process that, on balance, for the reasons often repeated on here (and Mrs. Free has covered them very well up thread) I think is a very bad thing for the UK and would like to see stopped (as would David Cameron if you can believe what he says). The second are people who I am more than happy to treat as individuals in the same way I would a native Brit, and like the natives of these isles, there are some arseholes and crooks but most, in my experience, are jolly nice people.
I think there is a nasty tendency for some people to deliberately confuse the opposition of large scale immigration with a dislike or even hatred of immigrants - you can see it on here almost everyday.
The number of times, Mr L, that I almost completely agree with you here is becoming high! I lived in a cotton town in Lancashire around 1960, just as the Kashmiris were starting to arrive. Big problem for the mills at the time was that, with virtually full employment, no locals wanted to do night shifts. Can’t recall whether the Kashmiris werte recruited or just came. Bit of both IIRC. Of course, the cotton trade collapsed a few years later, but both the men and their families were here by then. There were lots of vaguely racist stories about and a bit of “taking our jobs” but TBH I don’t recall much overt hostility. Most of the people who claimed their jobs had been taken didn’t want them anyway!
And now I have to go and visit the local (Australian) physiotherapist. To be fair, his wife’s a girl from Essex. As my granddaughter described herself at a Lancashire university.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that predicted the 2008 banking crash.
Wait a minute. There weren't any. There weren't any 'expert' economists either. Or central bankers. Or politicians. Or supranational institutions. Or regulators.
And when it happened they all stood around looking at each other, and p8ssing their pants.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
Well, I don't know about you but in my personal and business life I would look very carefully, if at all, at advice provided by an advisor who had on previous occasions been proved very wrong.
The problem is that you are arguing from experience of the very bad things that happened on the ERM and the Euro, whilst REMAIN are ignoring the facts and arguing about forecasts of what will happen. Those who do not learn the lessons from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. The Financial Times is a classic case of an organisation that was wrong on the ERM, Euro and ...... never apologised for it.
That's a super polemic TCPB. On Newsnight some 5 years or so ago Oborne confronted one of the "guilty men" to his incredulity. I think they still don't get how the great unwashed could think them blameworthy.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
Well, I don't know about you but in my personal and business life I would look very carefully, if at all, at advice provided by an advisor who had on previous occasions been proved very wrong.
As someone who managed credit risk for two decades my experience is that if you listen to these people, you will lose money.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
Is "none of the above" a valid answer?
If accurately forecasting GDP out to 2030 was so easy or even possible do you really think the people who could do it would be working for the Treasury or IMF? I know I wouldn't be!
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that get things right?
We have had NIESR - who couldn't spot a recession coming even when the banks were collapsing around them in October 2008;
We have had the IMF - proclaimers of UK doom, just before becoming the fastest growing economy in the G7;
We have had Carney - whose forward guidance was massively wrong on employment and interest rates;
We have Osborne - whose deficit schedules seem to be written by Galton and Simpson;
Perhaps the broader point is that all these economists and forecasters, much like last year's opinion pollsters, are held in broad disrepute because they have obviously been hopeless.
Quite why some people choose to continue to bow before them remains a mystery.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
Well, I don't know about you but in my personal and business life I would look very carefully, if at all, at advice provided by an advisor who had on previous occasions been proved very wrong.
Indeed. Given that we know that the IMF, Treasury, NIESR, G20 finance ministers, Bank of England, past US treasury secretaries, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Directors, all the investment banks, most fund managers, and nearly all academic economists, are not to be trusted, I'm just wondering who is.
Seems a reasonable question, does it not?
Alternatively - whisper it quietly - there's an alternative possibility. Maybe they are right.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that get things right?
We have had NIESR - who couldn't spot a recession coming even when the banks were collapsing around them in October 2008;
We have had the IMF - proclaimers of UK doom, just before becoming the fastest growing economy in the G7;
We have had Carney - whose forward guidance was massively wrong on employment and interest rates;
We have Osborne - whose deficit schedules seem to be written by Galton and Simpson;
Perhaps the broader point is that all these economists and forecasters, much like last year's opinion pollsters, are held in broad disrepute because they have obviously been hopeless.
Quite why some people choose to continue to bow before them remains a mystery.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
Farage has low trust ratings as does Cameron. Boris's ratings are better with undecideds. That said it could be that Farage may win over more with his aggressive debating style against Cameron. Cameron reacted very poorly when Clegg turned on him in that debate at the GE2015. Cameron should be careful of what he wishes for. He bullies Corbyn and will not be able to do that with Farage.
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
Not so and you misrepresent Carswell. His position is that we should have control of our borders so we can then attract the people we want to come to Britain. This is not a 'no migration' nor an 'open migration' policy. It is the country deciding the levels and types of migration we gave that best suits our economy and our social and infrastructure constraints.
Personally it is not a huge issue for me either way but you should at least try not to misrepresent what your opponents are saying for your own ends.
You're just quibbling over the word 'open'. The fact is that under Carswell's vision there'd be as much, if not more, immigration than we have now - albeit from places like India, China, Pakistan and Russia as well as Europe. There would have to be; otherwise Leave would have to admit that Brexit would necessitate an economic slump. Actually, this is an intellectually sound position. What is dubious is Leave's playing the raise-the-drawbridge card for the Little Englanders whilst suggesting the economics can all be jolly and nice.
But that is not what Carswell is doing and I was specifically challenging your claims about his position.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that predicted the 2008 banking crash.
Wait a minute. There weren't any. There weren't any 'expert' economists either. Or central bankers. Or politicians. Or supranational institutions. Or regulators.
And when it happened they all stood around looking at each other, and p8ssing their pants.
Didn't those rabid leavers Ken Clarke and Vince Cable predict something of the sort? Just saying...
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
Well, I don't know about you but in my personal and business life I would look very carefully, if at all, at advice provided by an advisor who had on previous occasions been proved very wrong.
Indeed. Given that we know that the IMF, Treasury, NIESR, G20 finance ministers, Bank of England, past US treasury secretaries, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Directors, all the investment banks, most fund managers, and nearly all academic economists, are not to be trusted, I'm just wondering who is.
Were they also wrong on the ERM? Were most in favour of the Euro? Case closed.
@faisalislam: Vote leave @patel4witham "EU-funded IMF shouldn't interfere in our democratic debate a week before polling day..desperation in IN campaign."
@faisalislam: Priti Patel also says: "It appears Chancellor is cashing in favours to Ms Lagarde in order to encourage the IMF to bully the British people"
EDIT: Good to see the Leavers have learnt their lesson about hyperbolic overreaction from yesterday...
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
yebbut...Dave got his opt out didn't he. We have a two-speed Europe. Closer fiscal and hence political integration on the one hand, and plucky old us on the other.
Many Leavers ISTR wanted a two-speed Europe, well we have one. We can cite any old measure the Euro-imperialists try to impose upon the EU as being part of Ever Closer Union, then point to our Feb 2016 deal and say: uh-uh.
No we really can't. The deal is worthless as I am afraid you will quickly find out if we vote Remain.
If it gets harder to hold conferences in Barcelona, we'll hold them elsewhere in the world. As a shareholder, I won't lose out. The company's London employees may though.
You mentioned something like this before, Mr. Observer, and I was confused then but not in a position to ask, perhaps I may now.
We do not have a single market with Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, or the USA, but I think you identified these a growth areas for your business. If we were to lose single market access with Spain then holding a conference in Barcelona would be no different, except for local rules and taxes, than holding a conference in Hong Kong etc..
I am lost as to why you would shift your business to places where we have never had access to a single market away from a place where we no longer have access to such. Could it be that the costs of doing business in the EU is that much higher than doing business in the wider world, and that there are in fact more customers in the wider world, that any increase in costs would make the EU unviable for your business?
It jus means there would be less compelling reasons to do business in Europe. One of the current attractions is how easy it is. We'd still do stuff I Europe, but not as much.
The problem is that you are arguing from experience of the very bad things that happened on the ERM and the Euro, whilst REMAIN are ignoring the facts and arguing about forecasts of what will happen. Those who do not learn the lessons from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. The Financial Times is a classic case of an organisation that was wrong on the ERM, Euro and ...... never apologised for it.
That's a super polemic TCPB. On Newsnight some 5 years or so ago Oborne confronted one of the "guilty men" to his incredulity. I think they still don't get how the great unwashed could think them blameworthy.
Possibly in this one? It has that establishment "genius" Richard Lambert who at CBI and FT Editor had advocated ERM and Euro..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK9BV4oG0ho
When will we get establishment "genius" Richard Lambert coming out for REMAIN?
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that get things right?
We have had NIESR - who couldn't spot a recession coming even when the banks were collapsing around them in October 2008;
We have had the IMF - proclaimers of UK doom, just before becoming the fastest growing economy in the G7;
We have had Carney - whose forward guidance was massively wrong on employment and interest rates;
We have Osborne - whose deficit schedules seem to be written by Galton and Simpson;
Perhaps the broader point is that all these economists and forecasters, much like last year's opinion pollsters, are held in broad disrepute because they have obviously been hopeless.
Quite why some people choose to continue to bow before them remains a mystery.
Let's not forget the ratings agencies...
And analysts. When the banks crashed in 2008 all them had buy recommendations on one dogsh8t lender or another.
"Most of the people who claimed their jobs had been taken didn’t want them anyway!"
That's the response of the Labour Party to the Lincolnshire Kippers. As an old git (not as old as you, though), it's the old response to the younger generation. "I worked on the land etc, but this present generation prefer sit on their fat arses and claim benefits.".
Just over fifty years ago, I remember hoeing cabbages on a field in the fens. The row stretched to the horizon somewhere in the North Sea, and the wind came directly from Siberia. If I could know then what I know now, my thoughts would have been ... "Where are all these Poles and Lithuanians when you need them?"
There are plenty of positive arguments, it's just that you do not agree with them. I see the Single Market as hugely beneficial and positive. You don't.
I have never said that. I do think the Single Market is a good thing. And it worries me greatly - as I've said on here - that the official view of Vote Leave is not to be in it. The sector I'm in would be damaged if the UK were not in the Single Market.
But that is the market side of the EU - the Common Market. And if that is all it was I would be happy to Remain.
What is the positive argument for having one system of law throughout the EU - civil rather than common law? What is the positive argument for having the same criminal system with, say, the abolition of trial by jury?
Bearing in mind that we do not have a single system of civil and criminal law within the UK, why do you suggest that it is an essential part of a "European superstate"?
Quite. Given the Scottish legal system has survived for three hundred years of oppressive dictatorial colonial rule from Westminster, I suspect the Common Law & Trial by Jury has a few years left in it yet.....
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that predicted the 2008 banking crash.
Wait a minute. There weren't any. There weren't any 'expert' economists either. Or central bankers. Or politicians. Or supranational institutions. Or regulators.
And when it happened they all stood around looking at each other, and p8ssing their pants.
Didn't those rabid leavers Ken Clarke and Vince Cable predict something of the sort? Just saying...
Really? I'd like to see a link for that. The only economist who spotted it was a guy called Nouriel Roubini. And he'd been a serial cassandra for a long time.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that predicted the 2008 banking crash.
Wait a minute. There weren't any. There weren't any 'expert' economists either. Or central bankers. Or politicians. Or supranational institutions. Or regulators.
And when it happened they all stood around looking at each other, and p8ssing their pants.
Didn't those rabid leavers Ken Clarke and Vince Cable predict something of the sort? Just saying...
Really? I'd like to see a link for that. The only economist who spotted it was a guy called Nouriel Roubini. And he'd been a serial cassandra for a long time.
To be fair I think Vince was bound to get something right eventually.
Just over fifty years ago, I remember hoeing cabbages on a field in the fens. The row stretched to the horizon somewhere in the North Sea, and the wind came directly from Siberia. If I could know then what I know now, my thoughts would have been ... "Where are all these Poles and Lithuanians when you need them?"
And if you tell that to kids today, they just won't believe it...
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
Is "none of the above" a valid answer?
If accurately forecasting GDP out to 2030 was so easy or even possible do you really think the people who could do it would be working for the Treasury or IMF? I know I wouldn't be!
Institutions have institutional views. They are not the right place to look for judgements of this sort.
It is quite straightforward to rig economic models to show whatever results you want. I spent a chunk of my own career doing precisely that. If you want to produce 'analysis' to support a preordained view, it isn't hard for a skilled bodger to do that. And it isn't even necessary for this to a be conscious act - just proceeding with a methodology that is unsound or incomplete will do the job for you.
In circumstances like these, you need to look at individuals and their track records.
I've mentioned before the example of the Gold Standard in the 1920s. You would have found it incredibly hard to find more than a handful of 'eminent' individuals who opposed the UK's return to Gold after WWI or who advocated going off Gold thereafter - until it happened of course.
As it happens, the one big voice who did was JM Keynes, the UK's greatest economist of the period. But almost no-one listened to him until the very end. What he was proposing was just too difficult for the institutional mind, dominated by inertia and unsound economic nostrums, to fathom.
The people we should listen to today are the people who got things right in 1992 and 1999-03. That is not any of the institutions. Nor is it the two-thirds of my profession who supported euro membership (according to semi-voodoo polls of the time).
More generally, the greatest international trade economist today is probably Jagdish Bhagwati. He is ferociously critical of preferential trade agreements, of which the EU is one.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
Farage has low trust ratings as does Cameron. Boris's ratings are better with undecideds. That said it could be that Farage may win over more with his aggressive debating style against Cameron. Cameron reacted very poorly when Clegg turned on him in that debate at the GE2015. Cameron should be careful of what he wishes for. He bullies Corbyn and will not be able to do that with Farage.
Agreed. I think Farage would do a much better job than Boris. Both Boris and Cameron come across as second-hand car salesmen. Farage wouldn't be asking people to trust him with holding any office.
Mr. Betting, but it's not a head-to-head. It's a Question Time special style, with each chap by himself, taking questions from an audience.
One scenario would be that the Remain/Cameron side prepare and utilise one particular ambush tactic against Farage, and it's what most of the press then talk about, but it backfires.
Why that format? It kind of looks as though the Remain side are scared.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Mr. Betting, but it's not a head-to-head. It's a Question Time special style, with each chap by himself, taking questions from an audience.
Shame. But Farage can still force the agenda onto immigration and quote millions after millions that will frankly scare the shi*e out of wwc voters. Look at the Roger Daltry view about "my mates the tradesmen who have seen their wages fall" line (or words to that effect).
Yes. I hope it's not a personal question, but it's difficult to decipher you own views at times. As I say, you're every right to promulgate other's views, but I think you may have rose-tinted glasses at times.
More generally, the greatest international trade economist today is probably Jagdish Bhagwati. He is ferociously critical of preferential trade agreements, of which the EU is one.
That's the Jagdish Bhagwati who is dead against the signing of new free trade agreements which the Leave side have been touting as the main economic advantage of leaving, right?
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
If leave started to pull ahead it wouldn't surprise me if some people in 'authority' started saying that, whilst they respected this democracy lark and all that, some decisions were just TOO important to be left to the voters and as such, the referendum is being postponed.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
yebbut...Dave got his opt out didn't he. We have a two-speed Europe. Closer fiscal and hence political integration on the one hand, and plucky old us on the other.
Many Leavers ISTR wanted a two-speed Europe, well we have one. We can cite any old measure the Euro-imperialists try to impose upon the EU as being part of Ever Closer Union, then point to our Feb 2016 deal and say: uh-uh.
No we really can't. The deal is worthless as I am afraid you will quickly find out if we vote Remain.
We did with the fiscal compact, why can't we in future?
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that predicted the 2008 banking crash.
Wait a minute. There weren't any. There weren't any 'expert' economists either. Or central bankers. Or politicians. Or supranational institutions. Or regulators.
And when it happened they all stood around looking at each other, and p8ssing their pants.
Didn't those rabid leavers Ken Clarke and Vince Cable predict something of the sort? Just saying...
Really? I'd like to see a link for that. The only economist who spotted it was a guy called Nouriel Roubini. And he'd been a serial cassandra for a long time.
Economists have predicted 20 of the last 3 recessions - or some such.
Andrew Neil pouring a ton of smelly stuff on the IMF "could lose 10% of gdp" guff.
Well when one considers that total export value to the EU is worth 12% of GDP, the assumption is that we would lose 5/6ths of our EU exports. It is an extreme scenario.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Nice. V sensible. An interesting exercise for us all to do, regardless of whether it has applicability to our own situations.
By 'OK names' you presumably mean the IMF/OECD etc.
There is not a chance in hell they would publicly support something like Brexit even if they thought it was economically OK. That is not the way these organisations work - they are creatures of the governments that fund them. I'm sure you know that.
I don't know that. In fact I don't think that. The IMF and the OECD represent the world order and the status quo. They see Brexit as a risk to the world order, which is their main interest. Logically any such Brexit risk affects Britain even more. They are not discredited in saying so, even if they don't really care about us. My personal opinion.
Leave have to get or keep the economics on a "no change" keel, in my judgment. The other side will bombard voters with "Think about the risk. Think about the risk." The moment voters do start thinking about the risk, Leave is sunk, also IMJ.
The IMF intervention is a lot more significant than Obama's for this reason.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Nice. V sensible. An interesting exercise for us all to do, regardless of whether it has applicability to our own situations.
What were some of the reactions?
Well the report comes out and says the position is reluctant support for remain, i.e. we wouldn't have started in this position. I think that's the general consensus as well from people who contributed and from people reading it today. I was probably one a only a handful of people in favour of leave who contributed, though I did try and go for the dispassionate view. It was my suggestion that closed borders would at least cost the financial services passport.
"Most of the people who claimed their jobs had been taken didn’t want them anyway!"
That's the response of the Labour Party to the Lincolnshire Kippers. As an old git (not as old as you, though), it's the old response to the younger generation. "I worked on the land etc, but this present generation prefer sit on their fat arses and claim benefits.".
Just over fifty years ago, I remember hoeing cabbages on a field in the fens. The row stretched to the horizon somewhere in the North Sea, and the wind came directly from Siberia. If I could know then what I know now, my thoughts would have been ... "Where are all these Poles and Lithuanians when you need them?"
"Most of the people who claimed their jobs had been taken didn’t want them anyway!"
Because, around the time of the Beatles first LP or so, there was full employment and they didn't want THOSE jobs. Some people liked working nights, but it did little for family relationships. Bad enough working weekends!
the other thinking is presumably that something befalls Hillary but to be honest, Sanders is still doing that well that he'd almost certainly win the nomination now if she withdrew, no matter what other mainstream candidate might consider filling the gap.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc... If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49. There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit. The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain. It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party. In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref. .....
So this would be a form of a coalition coupon election with in most cases 2 candidates. Candidate 1 = For this plan and Candidate 2 =Stick to referendum result. Candidate 2s would walk it. Voters do not like their wishes overturned. Just look at that Winchester election re-run.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Nice. V sensible. An interesting exercise for us all to do, regardless of whether it has applicability to our own situations.
What were some of the reactions?
Well the report comes out and says the position is reluctant support for remain, i.e. we wouldn't have started in this position. I think that's the general consensus as well from people who contributed and from people reading it today. I was probably one a only a handful of people in favour of leave who contributed, though I did try and go for the dispassionate view. It was my suggestion that closed borders would at least cost the financial services passport.
You know what they say ask 3 economists get 5 predictions , it was 4 but they later revises them up.
I'm amazed people think we should pay attention to Carney, who after he takes our hugely substantial bucks will presumably go back to living in the type of independent self determining country he is advising us not to become (ie Canada).
Britain's clearly no more than a giant intellectual playground for him, he has not stake here and should be completely disregarded.
the other thinking is presumably that something befalls Hillary but to be honest, Sanders is still doing that well that he'd almost certainly win the nomination now if she withdrew, no matter what other mainstream candidate might consider filling the gap.
You forgot carnage at the Democratic Convention, resulting in no Hillary or Bernie.
Andrew Neil pouring a ton of smelly stuff on the IMF "could lose 10% of gdp" guff.
Well when one considers that total export value to the EU is worth 12% of GDP, the assumption is that we would lose 5/6ths of our EU exports. It is an extreme scenario.
I presume the assumptions have more in the way of non-investment feedback loops - i.e. higher unemployment leading to higher tax / borrowing / interest rates etc - and also businesses relocating to the EU and so on, as well as reduced UK-EU trade. Even so, 10% sounds hugely exaggerated to me.
You know what they say ask 3 economists get 5 predictions , it was 4 but they later revises them up.
I'm amazed people think we should pay attention to Carney, who after he takes our hugely substantial bucks will presumably go back to living in a the type of independent self determining country he is advising us not to become (ie Canada).
Britain's clearly no more than a giant intellectual playground for him, he has not stake here and should be completely disregarded.
In fact, he should be f8cking fired.
It is an extraordinary move in that he should have realised that he has a 50/50 chance of LEAVE winning and if LEAVE win he will eventually be out on his ear. An expat should always respect the country where he is the guest.
Mr. Betting, well, we'll see (or not, I still expect Remain to win). He's been dodgy so far, I don't expect that to change.
Mr. Taffys, last night saw that the BBC's business editor (Kamal Ahmed, I think) asked a horrendously leading question of Carney, something like: "If we vote to leave, can you rule out a recession?"
There's only one answer to that because, unless you're a demented vainglorious cretin, everyone knows the business cycle means there's *always* another recession coming down the track.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that predicted the 2008 banking crash.
Wait a minute. There weren't any. There weren't any 'expert' economists either. Or central bankers. Or politicians. Or supranational institutions. Or regulators.
And when it happened they all stood around looking at each other, and p8ssing their pants.
Didn't those rabid leavers Ken Clarke and Vince Cable predict something of the sort? Just saying...
Really? I'd like to see a link for that. The only economist who spotted it was a guy called Nouriel Roubini. And he'd been a serial cassandra for a long time.
Economists have predicted 20 of the last 3 recessions - or some such.
Unlike the Treasury which has predicted none.
The problem with recessions is that they're a bit like earthquakes: we know they'll happen but knowing precisely when is much more an art than a science.
That said, I've long been of the view that the Treasury forecasting models should automatically build in one recession in the next 10 years.
Andrew Neil pouring a ton of smelly stuff on the IMF "could lose 10% of gdp" guff.
Well when one considers that total export value to the EU is worth 12% of GDP, the assumption is that we would lose 5/6ths of our EU exports. It is an extreme scenario.
Comments
All on here should download this free little book.
http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/q/id-8/
"The Conservative Party today confirmed to Channel 4 News that it had failed to declare the costs related to the Battlebus hotels due to what it described as an "administrative error" despite previously stating that all of the party's returns were accurate."
http://www.channel4.com/news/battlebus-conservatives-admit-election-expenses
The nature of establishment opinion - When elites get it wrong
" British elites have been very wrong about something very important in each of the last three decades. First, in the 1980s, it was Thatcherism. Privatisation, flexible labour markets and non-punitive tax rates are the common sense of our times, but Thatcherism was, at least at the turn of the 1980s, disdained by much of the British establishment as a transient fad propagated by a crazed fishwife from Grantham. Tory "wets" such as Ian Gilmour and Jim Prior were in line with the thinking of the civil service, the Confederation of British Industry, the universities and much of the high-brow media."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/09/nature-establishment-opinion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10884632/Do-I-have-to-go-on-my-knees-grovelling-apology-from-IMF-head-for-incorrect-warnings-on-UK-economy.html
No wolf, just economic growth.
By 'OK names' you presumably mean the IMF/OECD etc.
There is not a chance in hell they would publicly support something like Brexit even if they thought it was economically OK. That is not the way these organisations work - they are creatures of the governments that fund them. I'm sure you know that.
On why anyone should listen to IMF now when they ve been wrong before she started 'everyone makes mistakes'
Chuckles.
We do not have a single market with Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, or the USA, but I think you identified these a growth areas for your business. If we were to lose single market access with Spain then holding a conference in Barcelona would be no different, except for local rules and taxes, than holding a conference in Hong Kong etc..
I am lost as to why you would shift your business to places where we have never had access to a single market away from a place where we no longer have access to such. Could it be that the costs of doing business in the EU is that much higher than doing business in the wider world, and that there are in fact more customers in the wider world, that any increase in costs would make the EU unviable for your business?
The Named Person scheme that the Ruth Davidson party never shuts up about. Tories abstained and Labour voted for when the bill to roll it out throughout Scotland came up at Holyrood, and now it comes to light that a Tory council propped up by Labour has "run 'Named Person' scheme for 5 years without problems".
The worst kind of cynical politicking.
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/my-first-24-hours-as-an-nec-candidate-made-me-want-to-give-up-but-i-wont/
As she admits, she once worded one sentence in a blog carelessly. And she's Jewish. Those are the only things that anyone seems to be abusing her about. She's not standing for President, she wants to be on a party committee.
Now clearly if you've said something with current dodgy resonance there is a question about whether you regret it, still half-believe it, etc., and it's reasonable to query it. Corbyn once referred to Hamas people at a meeting as friends - he's explained that he was being polite as usual and in reality disagrees with them, and people can accept it or not. Boris has had a variety of colourful incidents which could reasonably be asked about if he stands or leader.
But if we witch-hunt novices to political office with anything they ever said to anyone, then we simply discourage novices from taking part. There should, I think be an acceptance that most of us have said some silly once or twice in the past, and if we admit it and apologise and there's no evidence that we still think it, then we should be allowed to move on. Otherwise, ambitious young people are going to avoid politics altogether or turn into robots issuing cloned statements from age 12.
Do I practice what I preach? I try to. An opponent once employed someone who had posed on Facebook in a Nazi uniform with what appeared to be a real (and hence illegal) handgun in the picture. I admit I was very tempted, but in the end we decided it was (a) probably past and (b) personal, so we didn't try to embarrass either of them.
I would look at a second property value tax, 3-4% per year of the value of the property would basically make all rentals in London and the South East completely unviable and exemptions for re/develop-to-let would encourage people to invest in building new property and refurbishing existing property.
However, that is probably far too radical and it introduces taxation of property based on values which is something I understand neither the PM nor the chancellor want to introduce because a future Labour government may try and extend it to all property.
Remain seem to be wheeling out a never ending bunch of verifiable failures in that regard.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
May I ask you a question?
Are you a federalist? Do you believe in political union? If so, you're fully entitled to air your views.
I think Remain will win and they'll win on the 'frit' vote. In Lincolnshire, we'd usually say "frit to death". And that's the economic issue, so I can see why Remain are piling everything on this. But ten years down the line, when the population find themselves in a political union and complain that it wasn't what they wanted, they'll find little sympathy.
As the old Scottish Joke ... "Ah, God, we didna ken." And the reply comes ... "Ah, well, ye ken the noo."
Remainers here aren't arguing for this. But they're ignoring what the EU wants and what other EU states want and what is likely to happen. It's a repeat of what has happened at every stage in the last 40 years. The EU makes proposals which are entirely in line with the political project; the UK says they won't happen; they do happen; we grumble. Rinse and repeat.
The EU is a political project with a political end in mind, which is more than a single market. It would be nice if those in favour of Remain accepted that, were open about it and set out in clear terms why us being part of such a political project is a good thing for us.
And now I have to go and visit the local (Australian) physiotherapist. To be fair, his wife’s a girl from Essex. As my granddaughter described herself at a Lancashire university.
Wait a minute. There weren't any. There weren't any 'expert' economists either. Or central bankers. Or politicians. Or supranational institutions. Or regulators.
And when it happened they all stood around looking at each other, and p8ssing their pants.
If accurately forecasting GDP out to 2030 was so easy or even possible do you really think the people who could do it would be working for the Treasury or IMF? I know I wouldn't be!
We have had NIESR - who couldn't spot a recession coming even when the banks were collapsing around them in October 2008;
We have had the IMF - proclaimers of UK doom, just before becoming the fastest growing economy in the G7;
We have had Carney - whose forward guidance was massively wrong on employment and interest rates;
We have Osborne - whose deficit schedules seem to be written by Galton and Simpson;
Perhaps the broader point is that all these economists and forecasters, much like last year's opinion pollsters, are held in broad disrepute because they have obviously been hopeless.
Quite why some people choose to continue to bow before them remains a mystery.
"Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, predicts the collapse of the eurozone in a book published this week" 29 Feb 2016
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5726e610-dec0-11e5-b7fd-0dfe89910bd6.html#axzz48X00CC00
"Economic threat of Brexit is being 'exaggerated', says former Bank of England chief" 20 April 2016
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/20/economic-threat-of-brexit-is-being-exaggerated-says-former-bank/
Seems a reasonable question, does it not?
Alternatively - whisper it quietly - there's an alternative possibility. Maybe they are right.
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
"What does the Pope think?"
The current Pope doesn't believe in it and has never used it. And nor have any other Popes in the last century and more.
The Papacy has a lot of faults, but do try to keep up to date.
No need to thank me.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419
I don't get it.
How does it happen?
@faisalislam: Priti Patel also says: "It appears Chancellor is cashing in favours to Ms Lagarde in order to encourage the IMF to bully the British people"
EDIT: Good to see the Leavers have learnt their lesson about hyperbolic overreaction from yesterday...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK9BV4oG0ho
When will we get establishment "genius" Richard Lambert coming out for REMAIN?
"Most of the people who claimed their jobs had been taken didn’t want them anyway!"
That's the response of the Labour Party to the Lincolnshire Kippers. As an old git (not as old as you, though), it's the old response to the younger generation. "I worked on the land etc, but this present generation prefer sit on their fat arses and claim benefits.".
Just over fifty years ago, I remember hoeing cabbages on a field in the fens. The row stretched to the horizon somewhere in the North Sea, and the wind came directly from Siberia. If I could know then what I know now, my thoughts would have been ... "Where are all these Poles and Lithuanians when you need them?"
It is quite straightforward to rig economic models to show whatever results you want. I spent a chunk of my own career doing precisely that. If you want to produce 'analysis' to support a preordained view, it isn't hard for a skilled bodger to do that. And it isn't even necessary for this to a be conscious act - just proceeding with a methodology that is unsound or incomplete will do the job for you.
In circumstances like these, you need to look at individuals and their track records.
I've mentioned before the example of the Gold Standard in the 1920s. You would have found it incredibly hard to find more than a handful of 'eminent' individuals who opposed the UK's return to Gold after WWI or who advocated going off Gold thereafter - until it happened of course.
As it happens, the one big voice who did was JM Keynes, the UK's greatest economist of the period. But almost no-one listened to him until the very end. What he was proposing was just too difficult for the institutional mind, dominated by inertia and unsound economic nostrums, to fathom.
The people we should listen to today are the people who got things right in 1992 and 1999-03. That is not any of the institutions. Nor is it the two-thirds of my profession who supported euro membership (according to semi-voodoo polls of the time).
More generally, the greatest international trade economist today is probably Jagdish Bhagwati. He is ferociously critical of preferential trade agreements, of which the EU is one.
Why that format? It kind of looks as though the Remain side are scared.
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
What on Earth are we doing?
But then, similar comments were made about Leavers' response to Obama's remarks.
"Do you mean me?"
Yes. I hope it's not a personal question, but it's difficult to decipher you own views at times. As I say, you're every right to promulgate other's views, but I think you may have rose-tinted glasses at times.
I may be wrong, of course.
I can see Cameron screwing up negotiations, offering us a terrible deal and then getting us to vote on Remain or the terribly negotiated new deal.
What were some of the reactions?
Leave have to get or keep the economics on a "no change" keel, in my judgment. The other side will bombard voters with "Think about the risk. Think about the risk." The moment voters do start thinking about the risk, Leave is sunk, also IMJ.
The IMF intervention is a lot more significant than Obama's for this reason.
Because, around the time of the Beatles first LP or so, there was full employment and they didn't want THOSE jobs. Some people liked working nights, but it did little for family relationships. Bad enough working weekends!
the other thinking is presumably that something befalls Hillary but to be honest, Sanders is still doing that well that he'd almost certainly win the nomination now if she withdrew, no matter what other mainstream candidate might consider filling the gap.
Candidate 2s would walk it. Voters do not like their wishes overturned. Just look at that Winchester election re-run.
Britain's clearly no more than a giant intellectual playground for him, he has not stake here and should be completely disregarded.
In fact, he should be f8cking fired.
Mr. Taffys, last night saw that the BBC's business editor (Kamal Ahmed, I think) asked a horrendously leading question of Carney, something like: "If we vote to leave, can you rule out a recession?"
There's only one answer to that because, unless you're a demented vainglorious cretin, everyone knows the business cycle means there's *always* another recession coming down the track.
The problem with recessions is that they're a bit like earthquakes: we know they'll happen but knowing precisely when is much more an art than a science.
That said, I've long been of the view that the Treasury forecasting models should automatically build in one recession in the next 10 years.