You are making an assumption that Great Britain PLC will be undervalued after the Brexit shock. Supposing it's not, supposing we just become poorer and then have to live again with stagflation.
For me it's a risk I'd rather not take. I've already lost a shed of load of cash on currency transactions because of this damned vote, I don't particularly want to take the chance with the rest of my assets thank you very much.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
And if that were to happen, others would see things were getting undervalued, and buy. It's called the market, you might wish to familiarise yourself with it.
Ah, the famed socialist and very well off Tyson suddenly becomes a nervous capitalist because he might lose a little bit of cash on the markets.
Not quite in keeping with your usual posting style, is it old bean?
I don't believe the Catholic Church had the right to overrule governments, but the Commission on the Rhine certainly did. (Albeit within a very narrow remit.)
I think it did: Henry VIII got a bit frustrated by it and invoked the mediaeval equivalent of Article 50.
Hmmmm... I guess it had a supranational role qua marriages.
Much more than that Robert.
It also insisted on parallel justice system for the trying of clerics (much more significant than it might seem as a lot of people could claim 'clerical' status) - which often allowed serious offenders to get away with light punishments.
There was also the issue of control of senior clerical appointments - again more important than it sounds today.
And it of course Rome extracted rather large revenues from the countries in which the church operated. The ancient equivalent, if you like, of our EU subscriptions.
Brexit would boost SEXISM! Harriet Harman says leaving EU would be 'major step back'
The ridiculous claims just keep getting more ridiculous.
No, it's true, I made a sexist joke just the other day and plan to make more if Leave wins.
In all seriousness, there is a lot of hyperbole and histrionics on all sides, but some claims are clearly worse than others. A colleague of mine expressed concern to an EU citizen colleague (resident for 20 years and married to British citizen) that they could be deported within weeks of a Leave win, which is an extreme I don't think I've even seen the Remain campaign suggest.
Paradoxically a Leave vote may lead to a surge in European migration in the 2 year window before Brexit happens.
Really? I thought the British economy was supposed to collapse the day after Brexit.
Someone clearly isn't swallowing the Remain propaganda whole.
Whether the economy collapses or not depends on which forecast from REMAIN people that you choose to use. In 2017 we are suddenly going to see a leap to 2.7% growth if we REMAIN according to Niesr...
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
The Holy Roman Empire was a supranational body of sorts? Also the Catholic Church.
Yes - why do you think
a) German princely states tried very hard over the centuries to whittle away the Holy Roman Empire's authority over them (and successfully did so - there was a long process of 'HREXIT')?
b) Medieval kings frequently got very angry with the Catholic church, and Henry VIII of England angry enough to split from it entirely.
Because, inter alia, these bodies reduced their effective sovereignty and ability to enforce a consistent system of justice and even obstructed crucially important dynastic decisions.
The counter to Scott_P's ignorance is the fact that many EU politicians and such luminaries as Tony Blair have claimed that we have moved into an age of "post-Westphalian" politics where the concept of national sovereignty is outdated. Indeed Herbert Van Rompuy when EU Council president regularly declared that National Sovereignty within the EU was dead. This is a view shared by many in the EU.
4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20%
Your responses are interesting, and make a fair case.
However, I don't think the specific point I've quoted holds up. The financial markets almost certainly think the probability of a Leave result is lower than 33%, and in any case the 20% Goldman Sachs figure was their worst-case forecast, not a central forecast. The market falls to date and typical predictions of a 10% to 15% fall in sterling on a Leave result look very consistent.
Yes, we have it at a 10-12 point drop in the case of the second option.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
IIRC, the Westphalian Treaties effectively abolished the supranational powers of the Holy Roman Empire, by recognising the right of its component states to make foreign policy and independent military alliances. That legal right was, however, lagging a long way behind the reality.
As we are a sovereign nation, lets vote to oust Angela Merkel and her supportersas her immigration policy will in years to come profoundly affect British society.
Or let's cross examine them as they campaign for re-election in Britain.
John Harris stuff on the GE last year was very good. This seems good piece for those that actually visit "real" America, especially middle America, not NY or Disneyland, or worse still think they know America while living 99.9% of their lives in Islington.
He picked up the mood of "Nuneaton man" well enough at the GE, a Grauniad journo worth reading methinks.
John Harris stuff on the GE last year was very good. This seems good piece for those that actually visit "real" America, especially middle America, not NY or Disneyland, or worse still think they know America while living 99.9% of their lives in Islington.
The NYT appeared not to venture from NYC for 99% of the GOP campaign. All their friends agreed Trump was awful and had no chance...
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?
The Fiscal Compact was a treaty we refused to sign up to. The February 'deal' is not a treaty and is meaningless in terms of keeping us out of further integration.
So we didn't have a deal but could opt out (or not sign - same thing) of one EU initiative but with a deal we wouldn't be able to opt out of other EU initiatives.
God give me strength.
You are clearly confused. Have a lie down then try again.
here is the hint. It is the difference between a not being in a treaty and being in a treaty. As long as we are inside the TFEU we have no protection against the terms of that treaty.
Don't we get a(nother) referendum on treaty change?
Regardless, we just play our "ah but that's Ever Closer Union" joker.
We don't have one. That is the flaw in your argument. There is no legal protection for us against Ever Closer Union in Cameron's deal.
There deserves to be an answer to those who ask why Leave is going against expert opinion:
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty 2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers 3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit 4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20% 5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
I think you will find the EU is currently not in recession. Britain has entered its third since 2009.
There deserves to be an answer to those who ask why Leave is going against expert opinion:
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty 2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers 3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit 4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20% 5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
2 is important. If the very worst that we face is 30% growth in GDP, rather than 36%, then what's the big deal?
6. It is a fact that nearly every economist supported ERM membership and most (though a lower number) supported euro membership. We took their advice on the first but not on the second. In both cases the eurosceptic viewpoint was vindicated. 7. Not only were they wrong before but if you used these gravity models today they would point to the conclusion that the UK should today join the euro. That means the model is problematic 8. The economic analysis in support of Remain excludes the risk of a massive Eurozone shock, e.g. Italy banks defaulting is not in their base case. Now, maybe that’s fair for a base case. But in considering what may happen it is worth accounting for whether we would rather be in or out of the EU should the Eurozone go really wrong (we’d be affected either way but would have more control over our response if out) 9. Most of the economic analysis underplays the gains from Remain, e.g. by simply ignoring the potential from deregulation. (Open Europe – which is roughly netural on economics overall – is an exception, in including these gains) 10. Most of the economic analysis in favour of Remain either ignores or is very pessimistic on the chances of the UK striking trade deals with third countries. That is a point of view but let’s not call it economic – it is political. Personally I feel that the UK would do well here, as one of the most free traded minded countries in the world 11. Finally, the analysis fails the smell test. The EU is struggling economically and those countries outside it are doing well. This doesn’t necessarily mean that is because they are not in the EU, but at the very least it suggests membership is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for prosperity
There deserves to be an answer to those who ask why Leave is going against expert opinion:
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty 2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers 3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit 4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20% 5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
I think you will find the EU is currently not in recession. Britain has entered its third since 2009.
No it hasn't. There have not been two consecutive quarters of negative growth since we came out of the single large recession in 2008/2009
I'm not sure your recollection re ERM membership is correct. I have a collection of essays on the subject from 1990, with pieces by Sir Alan Walters and others. The collection was split 50:50.
I don't think that represents the overall split of opinion in the profession at the time though, Robert. There were some notable dissenters of course, as there are now (some of them are the same people).
The Sovereign will of the British People is about to be expressed in a referendum.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
So, the British People get to be Sovereign every 43 years? Under duress?
I think there's a fool here and it's not Richard Tyndall.
VapidBilge by name....
We could have a referendum on EU membership, or Arsene Wenger's ennoblement, every fourth Thursday if we wanted to.
Really? How do you go about it?
Or do you mean parliament is sovereign, not the people?
I mean that if the people wanted to vote in a party under our current parliamentary democratic system (not the best...better than any other), which pledged a weekly referendum on BGT contestants, then we would have that weekly referendum and the dog would walk it.
There deserves to be an answer to those who ask why Leave is going against expert opinion:
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty 2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers 3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit 4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20% 5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
I think you will find the EU is currently not in recession. Britain has entered its third since 2009.
No it hasn't. There have not been two consecutive quarters of negative growth since we came out of the single large recession in 2008/2009
The manufacturing sector is in its third recession.
Which simply emphasises that EU membership is destroying the sector,
True- but at the moment we know what the market values our products at. Actually we know that it is slightly undervaluing Britain by about 7-10%- the amount sterling has fallen since this vote was announced.
If we leave then the market will re-value our product. If sterling depreciates significantly it will see us falling behind Italy. It could see our stocks and shares tumble, and our banks will come under pressure with people moving finance out.
Market's are not rational. John Nash proved this with the Prisoner's Dilemma. It is not inconceivable that Britain could become a much poorer country following a leave vote which would provide some answer to the European immigrant question, albeit third world countries would still want to come here.
This is not hyperbole. This is just a recognition of global economics and markets that are not particularly sentimental or rational.
You are making an assumption that Great Britain PLC will be undervalued after the Brexit shock. Supposing it's not, supposing we just become poorer and then have to live again with stagflation.
For me it's a risk I'd rather not take. I've already lost a shed of load of cash on currency transactions because of this damned vote, I don't particularly want to take the chance with the rest of my assets thank you very much.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
And if that were to happen, others would see things were getting undervalued, and buy. It's called the market, you might wish to familiarise yourself with it.
I'm saying that the market will establish the true value of UK PLC, whether we Leave or Remain. That's not a risk, it's a certainty.
As we are a sovereign nation, lets vote to oust Angela Merkel and her supportersas her immigration policy will in years to come profoundly affect British society.
Or let's cross examine them as they campaign for re-election in Britain.
Oh wait..
We can't.
Being a sovereign nation doesn't mean you have exclusive control over everything that affects you. The concepy of sovereign nations actually means the opposite. For example, Japan is affected by Chinese pollution, but despite being a sovereign nation it can't prevent it, because China is a sovereign nation too.
Quite. And yet her decisions may affect us profoundly.
Only if we as a Sovereign nation agree
That is what many people want to clarify in 6 weeks. Inclusion in the club should not require acceptance of unilaterally taken decisions by other member states, and Germany has proven it doesn't care about the collective when it takes unilateral decisions.
People don't vote based upon facts. They vote based upon emotion. We keep hearing all these statistics about what will happen if we vote one Leave. It won't move the needle much. People rejected Miliband because they took one look at him and decided he was a dork with the appeal of a potato. The EU referendum will be decided by how people feel in their waters about the EU.
let's cross examine them as they campaign for re-election in Britain.
Oh wait..
We can't.
Angela Merkel is not campaigning for re-election in Britain.
No - but she IS campaigning to make website owners liable for any comments posted below the line - so if you want to see the end of politicalbetting,com as an interesting and opinionated forum - vote REMAIN.
I'm not sure your recollection re ERM membership is correct. I have a collection of essays on the subject from 1990, with pieces by Sir Alan Walters and others. The collection was split 50:50.
I don't think that represents the overall split of opinion in the profession at the time though, Robert. There were some notable dissenters of course, as there are now (some of them are the same people).
There deserves to be an answer to those who ask why Leave is going against expert opinion:
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty 2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers 3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit 4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20% 5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
2 is important. If the very worst that we face is 30% growth in GDP, rather than 36%, then what's the big deal?
Considering the growth in GDP is due to immigration i.e. increasing one of the factors of production - labour, it doesn't necessarily increase per capita GDP. In fact, seeing a reduction in productivity growth, I would posit that immigration is leading to a reduction in the growth in living standards.
Is anybody else here wondering if all these economists predictions are simply highlighting that past and future growth has been based on simply cramming more people into Britain and eventually people are going to notice, possibly before 23rd June?
let's cross examine them as they campaign for re-election in Britain.
Oh wait..
We can't.
Angela Merkel is not campaigning for re-election in Britain.
No - but she IS campaigning to make website owners liable for any comments posted below the line - so if you want to see the end of politicalbetting,com as an interesting and opinionated forum - vote REMAIN.
No problem for Scott as he has no opinions, just the ability to repost those of others.
People don't vote based upon facts. They vote based upon emotion. We keep hearing all these statistics about what will happen if we vote one Leave. It won't move the needle much. People rejected Miliband because they took one look at him and decided he was a dork with the appeal of a potato. The EU referendum will be decided by how people feel in their waters about the EU.
You should distinguish carefully between 'facts' and 'numbers created to further a particular argument'.
Actually I think the public are quite good at doing that.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
The Roman church? *channels LIAMT whose posts I miss*
let's cross examine them as they campaign for re-election in Britain.
Oh wait..
We can't.
Angela Merkel is not campaigning for re-election in Britain.
No - but she IS campaigning to make website owners liable for any comments posted below the line - so if you want to see the end of politicalbetting,com as an interesting and opinionated forum - vote REMAIN.
That's already the case in the UK, as some of OGH's letters from Carter Ruck demonstrate
True- but at the moment we know what the market values our products at. Actually we know that it is slightly undervaluing Britain by about 7-10%- the amount sterling has fallen since this vote was announced.
If we leave then the market will re-value our product. If sterling depreciates significantly it will see us falling behind Italy. It could see our stocks and shares tumble, and our banks will come under pressure with people moving finance out.
Market's are not rational. John Nash proved this with the Prisoner's Dilemma. It is not inconceivable that Britain could become a much poorer country following a leave vote which would provide some answer to the European immigrant question, albeit third world countries would still want to come here.
This is not hyperbole. This is just a recognition of global economics and markets that are not particularly sentimental or rational.
You are making an assumption that Great Britain PLC will be undervalued after the Brexit shock. Supposing it's not, supposing we just become poorer and then have to live again with stagflation.
For me it's a risk I'd rather not take. I've already lost a shed of load of cash on currency transactions because of this damned vote, I don't particularly want to take the chance with the rest of my assets thank you very much.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
And if that were to happen, others would see things were getting undervalued, and buy. It's called the market, you might wish to familiarise yourself with it.
I'm saying that the market will establish the true value of UK PLC, whether we Leave or Remain. That's not a risk, it's a certainty.
I am not so sure it would work that way.
There are 170-180 nations that are independent of the EU and we would almost certainly end up judged by the same criteria as places like Japan, Canada, Australia.
The EU meanwhile would have lost close to 20% of it's GDP and it's second largest economy.
I think it's possible that Brexit is a greater threat to the EU than it is the UK.
let's cross examine them as they campaign for re-election in Britain.
Oh wait..
We can't.
Angela Merkel is not campaigning for re-election in Britain.
No - but she IS campaigning to make website owners liable for any comments posted below the line - so if you want to see the end of politicalbetting,com as an interesting and opinionated forum - vote REMAIN.
That's already the case in the UK, as some of OGH's letters from Carter Ruck demonstrate
PB is moderated in any case - the proposal relates to unmoderated comment sections.
But, that emotion is primarily directed by self interest which should ward off a leave vote. If people think they'll be poorer outsider the EU, they'll vote in.
That said nationalism does funny things with people's heads. Nationalism is such a nihilistic force, it can lead to people acting against any kind of logic, self interest, or anything else that promotes their well being.
Although political ideology has thankfully had it's day in the sun for now, nationalism and religion are still around unfortunately and unleashing their horrible consequences on the world.
People don't vote based upon facts. They vote based upon emotion. We keep hearing all these statistics about what will happen if we vote one Leave. It won't move the needle much. People rejected Miliband because they took one look at him and decided he was a dork with the appeal of a potato. The EU referendum will be decided by how people feel in their waters about the EU.
There deserves to be an answer to those who ask why Leave is going against expert opinion:
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty 2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers 3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit 4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20% 5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
2 is important. If the very worst that we face is 30% growth in GDP, rather than 36%, then what's the big deal?
The problem comes with the misrepresentation of the data turning it into £4,000 poorer per household. Basically government deception.... and some folk wonder why politicians are less trusted these days.
I don't believe the Catholic Church had the right to overrule governments, but the Commission on the Rhine certainly did. (Albeit within a very narrow remit.)
I think it did: Henry VIII got a bit frustrated by it and invoked the mediaeval equivalent of Article 50.
Mr. Flaming Picky would like to point out that Henry VIII was not a medieval monarch - he was in fact the second English King of the post-medieval period.
</ pendant off>
That said I am not a great fan of the traditional practice of dividing up history into labelled chunks of time, under which according to British Historians the Medieval Period ended at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Why, FFS? What was so different about life under Henry VII to that under Richard III that it justified a change in historical epoch? Like so much in England (e.g. its education system), there is in common understanding of history a hangover from Victorian sentimentalism and ignorance.
Bah! I really must finish my treatise that demonstrates how the system of recruiting, training and discipline the Royal Navy in Nelson's era was, for its time, enlightened and in many ways compared favourably with that of conscription in WW2.
Population rising, GDP rising .... can see it round here in Bournville, Birmingham where quite a few new housing developments (some green fields/football pitches gone), blocks of flats, have occurred in the last 12 months ... Overall, the previously shrinking Birmingham is now set to expand in a few years by 300,000 or so to 1.3 mn. More congestion, more concrete, that seems to be our future ....
P.S. Can't imagine that a big chunk of the Rumanian (seem to be making a mark as 'Big Issue' sellers) and Bulgarian intake are doing much for the GDP per capita ..
'True- but at the moment we know what the market values our products at. Actually we know that it is slightly undervaluing Britain by about 7-10%- the amount sterling has fallen since this vote was announced.'
And yet Sterling is higher against the Euro & Swiss Franc than in 2012 before the referendum was announced.
Comments
Not quite in keeping with your usual posting style, is it old bean?
It also insisted on parallel justice system for the trying of clerics (much more significant than it might seem as a lot of people could claim 'clerical' status) - which often allowed serious offenders to get away with light punishments.
There was also the issue of control of senior clerical appointments - again more important than it sounds today.
And it of course Rome extracted rather large revenues from the countries in which the church operated. The ancient equivalent, if you like, of our EU subscriptions.
Or let's cross examine them as they campaign for re-election in Britain.
Oh wait..
We can't.
Awesome
Which simply emphasises that EU membership is destroying the sector,
that and Osborne.
nice posts. Small point - Capital Economics gave the most half-hearted endorsement of Leave as it would affect The City.
If we leave then the market will re-value our product. If sterling depreciates significantly it will see us falling behind Italy. It could see our stocks and shares tumble, and our banks will come under pressure with people moving finance out.
Market's are not rational. John Nash proved this with the Prisoner's Dilemma. It is not inconceivable that Britain could become a much poorer country following a leave vote which would provide some answer to the European immigrant question, albeit third world countries would still want to come here.
This is not hyperbole. This is just a recognition of global economics and markets that are not particularly sentimental or rational.
maybe he'll invite her to threaten us first.
Well, fairly sure.
Well, maybe...
Gulp.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/eurozone-growth-stumbles-even-as-germanys-economy-hits-its-stride-8wz9jqxnz
@Anna_Soubry: Perfectly legal #LabourExpress bussing 100's activists into Tory marginals so why #Torybashing ? https://t.co/QTjgFJJP33
@MrHarryCole: This could well explain why it's been "no comment" for weeks from @labourpress when asked about Tory election spend
https://t.co/ltJ3ugPRuE
Is anybody else here wondering if all these economists predictions are simply highlighting that past and future growth has been based on simply cramming more people into Britain and eventually people are going to notice, possibly before 23rd June?
Actually I think the public are quite good at doing that.
There are 170-180 nations that are independent of the EU and we would almost certainly end up judged by the same criteria as places like Japan, Canada, Australia.
The EU meanwhile would have lost close to 20% of it's GDP and it's second largest economy.
I think it's possible that Brexit is a greater threat to the EU than it is the UK.
Fortunately these days there are other places to go.
Yes it's getting to the point where the British sense of fair play may become a factor.
YET ANOTHER NEW PRO-REMAIN THREAD
That said nationalism does funny things with people's heads. Nationalism is such a nihilistic force, it can lead to people acting against any kind of logic, self interest, or anything else that promotes their well being.
Although political ideology has thankfully had it's day in the sun for now, nationalism and religion are still around unfortunately and unleashing their horrible consequences on the world.
</ pendant off>
That said I am not a great fan of the traditional practice of dividing up history into labelled chunks of time, under which according to British Historians the Medieval Period ended at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Why, FFS? What was so different about life under Henry VII to that under Richard III that it justified a change in historical epoch? Like so much in England (e.g. its education system), there is in common understanding of history a hangover from Victorian sentimentalism and ignorance.
Bah! I really must finish my treatise that demonstrates how the system of recruiting, training and discipline the Royal Navy in Nelson's era was, for its time, enlightened and in many ways compared favourably with that of conscription in WW2.
P.S. Can't imagine that a big chunk of the Rumanian (seem to be making a mark as 'Big Issue' sellers) and Bulgarian intake are doing much for the GDP per capita ..
'True- but at the moment we know what the market values our products at. Actually we know that it is slightly undervaluing Britain by about 7-10%- the amount sterling has fallen since this vote was announced.'
And yet Sterling is higher against the Euro & Swiss Franc than in 2012 before the referendum was announced.