@AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union
@AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit
It all seems to be minor stuff.
Yes very minor. If, after 15 years our growth is 8% less (WTO scenario) that staying in the EU, then with an economy of approx £2,000 billion, we would be £160b a year worse off in terms of size of economy. The Government would have approx £55b less in tax revenue than staying in the EU.
The FTA scenario is that we would be 5% worse off, £100b a year in size of econony and say £35b less tax revenue.
The EEA scenario is the most benign in that we would be 2% worse off, £40b a year in size of economy and say £15b less tax revenue.
But we would have blue passports.
There isn't the incentive for project fear that there was in a referendum campaign. There will be close questioning of the assumptions and methodology by the Cabinet, that there wasn't with Osborne's projections. I think they will take them seriously.
So in the best case scenario, all the money we save by not being in the EU gets spent instead on plugging around 70% of the tax shortfall caused by leaving the EU - and we’ve essentially agreed to leave in name only. Brilliant!!
Nope because we don't actually save that money. The "best case' includes payments to the EU.
I love how arch Remainers still can’t use the term Brexiteer, because it might have too many positive connotations. Talk about insecurity.
Brexiteer has positive connotations ?
I thought it was the equivalent to remoaner (rather than Brexiter and remainer), but I suppose it might be seen as positive due to the musketeer connection?
I do wish backbenchers wouldn’t sound off like this. That said, once the Brexit subcommittee has agreed on the desired end state, they need to shout the benefits of it from the rooftops.
We won't have to sit on any boring ministerial meetings anymore! And the hassle of electing MEPs will be a thing of the past! In the new relationship it will all be seamless and automatic!
Remainer Tories are willing to crash the government? yeh, right.
Have to say I'm really enjoying this descent into all out Brexiteer war in the Tory party. The Brexiteer MP's have just been pushed too far, and the elastic holding the whole lot is snapping, Corbyn not withstanding. The trouble is that everyone has so much dirt on everyone else, that it's a plague on all your houses. I'm glad that I'm out of that particular firing line thank you!
The whole atmosphere in the Westminster village has been getting more and more unpleasant of recent times with threats and counter threats, and cover ups abound given the mutual dirt that everyone has in their own 'effective dossiers'. The chance of getting good government in this environment, irrespective of who you vote for is precisely nil.
@AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union
@AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit
It all seems to be minor stuff.
Yes very minor. If, after 15 years our growth is 8% less (WTO scenario) that staying in the EU, then with an economy of approx £2,000 billion, we would be £160b a year worse off in terms of size of economy. The Government would have approx £55b less in tax revenue than staying in the EU.
The FTA scenario is that we would be 5% worse off, £100b a year in size of econony and say £35b less tax revenue.
The EEA scenario is the most benign in that we would be 2% worse off, £40b a year in size of economy and say £15b less tax revenue.
But we would have blue passports.
There isn't the incentive for project fear that there was in a referendum campaign. There will be close questioning of the assumptions and methodology by the Cabinet, that there wasn't with Osborne's projections. I think they will take them seriously.
So in the best case scenario, all the money we save by not being in the EU gets spent instead on plugging around 70% of the tax shortfall caused by leaving the EU - and we’ve essentially agreed to leave in name only. Brilliant!!
Nope because we don't actually save that money. The "best case' includes payments to the EU.
Yep - good point!! The best case scenario is we actually lose decision-making influence and gain almost no sovereignty while having a lower tax take. Rejoice!
I do wish backbenchers wouldn’t sound off like this. That said, once the Brexit subcommittee has agreed on the desired end state, they need to shout the benefits of it from the rooftops.
We won't have to sit on any boring ministerial meetings anymore! And the hassle of electing MEPs will be a thing of the past! In the new relationship it will all be seamless and automatic!
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
Not necessarily. It's relative to the counterfactual trend. If the next ten years repeats the last ten years we will be poorer, as actually happened to Italy , and as we discussed a couple of days ago.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than we would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than they would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Well, actually we will never know. Over the course of 15 years, the government will take all sorts of decisions, and all sorts of events will occur, which bear on economic growth. And, however well our economy performs, you will say it would have performed even better inside the EU.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
Not necessarily. It's relative to the counterfactual trend. If the next ten years repeats the last ten years we will be poorer, as actually happened to Italy , and as we discussed a couple of days ago.
That's a possibility, but economies tend to grow over time, in the absence of war or very bad government.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than we would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Might be.
And then again, might not.
But like me, I'm sure you care more about democracy, right?
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
Not necessarily. It's relative to the counterfactual trend. If the next ten years repeats the last ten years we will be poorer, as actually happened to Italy , and as we discussed a couple of days ago.
That's a possibility, but economies tend to grow over time, in the absence of war or very bad government.
Government spending plans are predicated on growth projections. Ours will now have to be reduced and that means less public spending than now and/or a lot more borrowing. This will have the greatest impact on the ordinary Leave voters the wealthy, privileged right wingers who led the Leave campaign pretended to care about.
I love how arch Remainers still can’t use the term Brexiteer, because it might have too many positive connotations. Talk about insecurity.
If you would like to submit a list of terms you consider sufficiently positive, you could always post it here. I'm sure such a list would garner the exact amount of respect it deserves...
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than we would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
The Sliding Doors option is not available so you cannot make a certainty of an uncertainty; even in the face of the certainty of that statement, you think that you can. That's delusional,
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than they would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Well, actually we will never know. Over the course of 15 years, the government will take all sorts of decisions, and all sorts of events will occur, which bear on economic growth. And, however well our economy performs, you will say it would have performed even better inside the EU.
You're right that we won't be able to use the actual performance in 15 years time to calibrate the model because of the many perturbations there will be in practice between now and then.
But at this moment, the Cabinet is tasked with reviewing what the effect will be, relative to staying in the EU, of the various options before them. The analysis will have looked at the differential impact, sector by sector, of the various scenarios to come up with a best estimate (which will of course be wrong in detail). It would be a dereliction of their duty to just shrug and say well all forecasts are wrong.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
Not necessarily. It's relative to the counterfactual trend. If the next ten years repeats the last ten years we will be poorer, as actually happened to Italy , and as we discussed a couple of days ago.
That's a possibility, but economies tend to grow over time, in the absence of war or very bad government.
Government spending plans are predicated on growth projections. Ours will now have to be reduced and that means less public spending than now and/or a lot more borrowing. This will have the greatest impact on the ordinary Leave voters the wealthy, privileged right wingers who led the Leave campaign pretended to care about.
Yet, tax revenues are rising, and public borrowing is falling. I am pretty confident that real public spending will be much higher in 2032 than it is today, subject to events, of course.
Have to say I'm really enjoying this descent into all out Brexiteer war in the Tory party...
I'm genuinely hating it. The Conservatives used to have a rep for decisive action and a will-to-power, which - for all its sins - had an air of competence. There are many terms you could use to describe the present administration, but competent would not be first on the list.
And absolutely no-one is proposing changes to breaks or holiday pay.
Why do people think that scare tactics like this are a decent contribution to debate?
Because there are gullible idiots that believe them, but they're not the ones on their side of the argument. None of them ever learn. Why do Unions never campaign for hard work?
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
British voters were told they would be better off as a result of Brexit: wages would rise, public spending would increase, none of the benefits of EU membership would be lost. That will not happen. On the plus side, there is every chance that I will be a big Brexit winner - so it’s not all bad news!
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than we would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Might be.
And then again, might not.
But like me, I'm sure you care more about democracy, right?
I care about the future health and wealth of this country and the future for my children and grandchildren and everybody elses. And I hope and believe that most MPs do too.
I also care a great deal about democracy and the lamentable state of democracy in this country (eg 80,000 elderly Tory members choosing the next PM and the direction of this country for decades!) but that is a different issue at this point.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
Not necessarily. It's relative to the counterfactual trend. If the next ten years repeats the last ten years we will be poorer, as actually happened to Italy , and as we discussed a couple of days ago.
That's a possibility, but economies tend to grow over time, in the absence of war or very bad government.
Government spending plans are predicated on growth projections. Ours will now have to be reduced and that means less public spending than now and/or a lot more borrowing. This will have the greatest impact on the ordinary Leave voters the wealthy, privileged right wingers who led the Leave campaign pretended to care about.
Yet, tax revenues are rising, and public borrowing is falling. I am pretty confident that real public spending will be much higher in 2032 than it is today, subject to events, of course.
Although given demographic challenges, that isn't that helpful.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
+1
And just to add, forecasts will likely have less impact with individuals than their own anecdata.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than they would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Well, actually we will never know. Over the course of 15 years, the government will take all sorts of decisions, and all sorts of events will occur, which bear on economic growth. And, however well our economy performs, you will say it would have performed even better inside the EU.
You're right that we won't be able to use the actual performance in 15 years time to calibrate the model because of the many perturbations there will be in practice between now and then.
But at this moment, the Cabinet is tasked with reviewing what the effect will be, relative to staying in the EU, of the various options before them. The analysis will have looked at the differential impact, sector by sector, of the various scenarios to come up with a best estimate (which will of course be wrong in detail). It would be a dereliction of their duty to just shrug and say well all forecasts are wrong.
"in detail" is redundant and all recent economic forecasts have been wrong largely because they have been made from a position of partiality, like your posts.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
The Irish example is relevant. An economy that depended on expatriating anyone who could work wasn't a happy one. I accept there was no serious attempt to reverse independence but if anything slightly similar happened with the Brexit economy, you have to ask whether it was worth it. Currently half the population (and marginally increasing) don't think so.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
British voters were told they would be better off as a result of Brexit: wages would rise, public spending would increase, none of the benefits of EU membership would be lost. That will not happen. On the plus side, there is every chance that I will be a big Brexit winner - so it’s not all bad news!
Economically, I think the good news has outweighed the bad over the past 18 months. I cannot categorically say that this is due to the Brexit vote, or that it will continue in the future, or that the news would not have been better still if the vote had gone the other way. But, it's been a lot better than most forecasters expected.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than we would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
The Sliding Doors option is not available so you cannot make a certainty of an uncertainty; even in the face of the certainty of that statement, you think that you can. That's delusional,
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
When the next recession comes it won't just be blamed on Brexit, the voters voted for Brexit after all, it will be blamed on the government of the day too. Though even that does not necessarily mean a change of government if the alternative is seen as worse, see 1992
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more...
Makes sense... but imagine Brexit plus Corbynomics.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more...
Makes sense... but imagine Brexit plus Corbynomics.
Well it will reverse Blairism and Cameronomics, firstly cutting immigration then hitting big business and the rich
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than we would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Might be.
And then again, might not.
But like me, I'm sure you care more about democracy, right?
I care about the future health and wealth of this country and the future for my children and grandchildren and everybody elses. And I hope and believe that most MPs do too.
I also care a great deal about democracy and the lamentable state of democracy in this country (eg 80,000 elderly Tory members choosing the next PM and the direction of this country for decades!) but that is a different issue at this point.
Let's put it this way, if we're talking forecasts:
Forecast one: We leave the EU, as the people decided they want to do. We experience growth over the next 15 years.
Forecast two: We don't decide to leave the EU, despite the people deciding they wanted to. We experience slightly stronger growth over the next 15 years.
Two will result in more heartache, and, most certainly, a rejection of normal political means by some.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than they would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Well, actually we will never know. Over the course of 15 years, the government will take all sorts of decisions, and all sorts of events will occur, which bear on economic growth. And, however well our economy performs, you will say it would have performed even better inside the EU.
You're right that we won't be able to use the actual performance in 15 years time to calibrate the model because of the many perturbations there will be in practice between now and then.
But at this moment, the Cabinet is tasked with reviewing what the effect will be, relative to staying in the EU, of the various options before them. The analysis will have looked at the differential impact, sector by sector, of the various scenarios to come up with a best estimate (which will of course be wrong in detail). It would be a dereliction of their duty to just shrug and say well all forecasts are wrong.
"in detail" is redundant and all recent economic forecasts have been wrong largely because they have been made from a position of partiality, like your posts.
I admit my posts are partial, as are yours. But do you think these latest forecasts are partial? Ministers are going to crawl all over the methods and assumptions. It looks as if Fox might have accepted them (waiting for confirmation of that).
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
They didn't complain, they just left the country.
"In the twentieth century mass emigration reached levels during the 1940s and 1950s that were reminiscent of the 1850s, in the aftermath of the Great Irish Famine."
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more...
Makes sense... but imagine Brexit plus Corbynomics.
Corbynomics doesn't require any additional ingredient to be nightmarish.
Have to say I'm really enjoying this descent into all out Brexiteer war in the Tory party...
I'm genuinely hating it. The Conservatives used to have a rep for decisive action and a will-to-power, which - for all its sins - had an air of competence. There are many terms you could use to describe the present administration, but competent would not be first on the list.
As I've said before, in a normal climate Corbyn wouldn't stand a cat in hells chance of becoming PM. It is a measure of the incompetence, and ruination of many people's life chances as a result of the powers that be that run this country that Corbyn has any chance at all. Ask the young about the reality of their lives - a massive proportion of their money going out on rent, no realistic prospect of owning a house et etc, and you can see what a fertile seam Corbyn was mining last June, irrespective of the utter ruination that him and his ilk would bring to Britain, were they ever to enter the gates of 10 Downing Street.
Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?
Read the report.
Non-tariff barriers. Now, who said that? Repeatedly.
And how does it pertain to car parts?
oh...
ALL CAR ASSEMBLY FACTORY LOCATIONS TO BE MADE FREEPORTS AND EXEMPT FROM IMPORT DUTIES AND CONTROLS - RUMOUR.
Don't ports need to be somewhere near the sea ?
Free Trade Zone. If it's a question of removing import barriers on components but subject the completed vehicle to the aggregate duty on release from the compound that would I expect be acceptable to the EU. It would reduce the administrative burden and delay in collecting duties on every component. Any selective reduction of tax rates I suspect would go against any trade agreement with the EU.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than they would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Well, actually we will never know. Over the course of 15 years, the government will take all sorts of decisions, and all sorts of events will occur, which bear on economic growth. And, however well our economy performs, you will say it would have performed even better inside the EU.
You're right that we won't be able to use the actual performance in 15 years time to calibrate the model because of the many perturbations there will be in practice between now and then.
But at this moment, the Cabinet is tasked with reviewing what the effect will be, relative to staying in the EU, of the various options before them. The analysis will have looked at the differential impact, sector by sector, of the various scenarios to come up with a best estimate (which will of course be wrong in detail). It would be a dereliction of their duty to just shrug and say well all forecasts are wrong.
"in detail" is redundant and all recent economic forecasts have been wrong largely because they have been made from a position of partiality, like your posts.
I admit my posts are partial, as are yours. But do you think these latest forecasts are partial? Ministers are going to crawl all over the methods and assumptions. It looks as if Fox might have accepted them (waiting for confirmation of that).
Forecasts don't turn out to be wrong because they are partial, they turn out to be wrong because they are forecasts. It is extraordinary how everyone will assent in principle to the proposition that the future is unknowable, but not act as if that were true.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than they would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Well, actually we will never know. Over the course of 15 years, the government will take all sorts of decisions, and all sorts of events will occur, which bear on economic growth. And, however well our economy performs, you will say it would have performed even better inside the EU.
You're right that we won't be able to use the actual performance in 15 years time to calibrate the model because of the many perturbations there will be in practice between now and then.
But at this moment, the Cabinet is tasked with reviewing what the effect will be, relative to staying in the EU, of the various options before them. The analysis will have looked at the differential impact, sector by sector, of the various scenarios to come up with a best estimate (which will of course be wrong in detail). It would be a dereliction of their duty to just shrug and say well all forecasts are wrong.
"in detail" is redundant and all recent economic forecasts have been wrong largely because they have been made from a position of partiality, like your posts.
I admit my posts are partial, as are yours. But do you think these latest forecasts are partial? Ministers are going to crawl all over the methods and assumptions. It looks as if Fox might have accepted them (waiting for confirmation of that).
At the end of the day, partiality is unavoidable. It's the combination with constructiveness which is critical and I think that is where you and I (and the forecasts) differ.
Fox is not forecasting anything - it is pretty clear that, as things stand at present, a hard Brexit (by virtually any definition I can think of) is unachievable. He still has his partiality but it's (for him) strangely constructive.
Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.
YMMV...
Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
That isn't the point as you know.
When people throw around the term poorer in relation to predictions, none of which make the country poorer, I think it very much is.
Are you trying to spin this or do you really not get the point that we would be considerably worse off than they would be if we stayed in the EU (even though we may be better off than now) and that this really matters.?
Well, actually we will never know. Over the course of 15 years, the government will take all sorts of decisions, and all sorts of events will occur, which bear on economic growth. And, however well our economy performs, you will say it would have performed even better inside the EU.
You're right that we won't be able to use the actual performance in 15 years time to calibrate the model because of the many perturbations there will be in practice between now and then.
But at this moment, the Cabinet is tasked with reviewing what the effect will be, relative to staying in the EU, of the various options before them. The analysis will have looked at the differential impact, sector by sector, of the various scenarios to come up with a best estimate (which will of course be wrong in detail). It would be a dereliction of their duty to just shrug and say well all forecasts are wrong.
"in detail" is redundant and all recent economic forecasts have been wrong largely because they have been made from a position of partiality, like your posts.
I admit my posts are partial, as are yours. But do you think these latest forecasts are partial? Ministers are going to crawl all over the methods and assumptions. It looks as if Fox might have accepted them (waiting for confirmation of that).
Forecasts don't turn out to be wrong because they are partial, they turn out to be wrong because they are forecasts. It is extraordinary how everyone will assent in principle to the proposition that the future is unknowable, but not act as if that were true.
There is an important point to make about these economic forecasts. The upside prospects, to the extent they exist at all, are all of the "something might turn up" kind. Meanwhile the downside risks are here and now and concrete. If we don't stay in the Single Market, have financial services passports, have freeflow customs points etc etc, there will be quantifiable costs. You won't estimate it perfectly, but if you have more barriers you will have more costs and if you mitigate them, you will have fewer.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
British voters were told they would be better off as a result of Brexit: wages would rise, public spending would increase, none of the benefits of EU membership would be lost. That will not happen. On the plus side, there is every chance that I will be a big Brexit winner - so it’s not all bad news!
Economically, I think the good news has outweighed the bad over the past 18 months. I cannot categorically say that this is due to the Brexit vote, or that it will continue in the future, or that the news would not have been better still if the vote had gone the other way. But, it's been a lot better than most forecasters expected.
Lol @ "cannot categorically say...".
I have yet to hear even the most zealous Brexiter suggest that the unexpected surge in economic performance across the world, most notably in the Eurozone, was down to the Brexit vote! Just a shame Britain is benefiting less than most, eh?
Forecasts don't turn out to be wrong because they are partial, they turn out to be wrong because they are forecasts. It is extraordinary how everyone will assent in principle to the proposition that the future is unknowable, but not act as if that were true.
If only there was a site for wagering money based on forecasting election results...
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
British voters were told they would be better off as a result of Brexit: wages would rise, public spending would increase, none of the benefits of EU membership would be lost. That will not happen. On the plus side, there is every chance that I will be a big Brexit winner - so it’s not all bad news!
Economically, I think the good news has outweighed the bad over the past 18 months. I cannot categorically say that this is due to the Brexit vote, or that it will continue in the future, or that the news would not have been better still if the vote had gone the other way. But, it's been a lot better than most forecasters expected.
The developed world, and in particular the Eurozone, has put on a significant spurt of growth in the last 18 months.
I don't think that's due to Brexit, more to savings rates across the world now returning to more normal levels after having been elevated for some time.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
British voters were told they would be better off as a result of Brexit: wages would rise, public spending would increase, none of the benefits of EU membership would be lost. That will not happen. On the plus side, there is every chance that I will be a big Brexit winner - so it’s not all bad news!
Economically, I think the good news has outweighed the bad over the past 18 months. I cannot categorically say that this is due to the Brexit vote, or that it will continue in the future, or that the news would not have been better still if the vote had gone the other way. But, it's been a lot better than most forecasters expected.
The developed world, and in particular the Eurozone, has put on a significant spurt of growth in the last 18 months.
I don't think that's due to Brexit, more to savings rates across the world now returning to more normal levels after having been elevated for some time.
Savings rates?
How have ours moved compared with other countries?
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more...
Makes sense... but imagine Brexit plus Corbynomics.
I think many Britons prefer a Corbyn Brexit to a Hannanite one.
Gavin Williamson could be the next PM in a few months' time and I've just realised I don't even know what he sounds like. There have been quite a lot of pictures of him walking around Westminster on the news recently but not many with him actually talking.
Gavin Williamson could be the next PM in a few months' time and I've just realised I don't even know what he sounds like. There have been quite a lot of pictures of him walking around Westminster on the news recently but not many with him actually talking.
Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?
Read the report.
Non-tariff barriers. Now, who said that? Repeatedly.
And how does it pertain to car parts?
oh...
ALL CAR ASSEMBLY FACTORY LOCATIONS TO BE MADE FREEPORTS AND EXEMPT FROM IMPORT DUTIES AND CONTROLS - RUMOUR.
Don't ports need to be somewhere near the sea ?
Free Trade Zone. If it's a question of removing import barriers on components but subject the completed vehicle to the aggregate duty on release from the compound that would I expect be acceptable to the EU. It would reduce the administrative burden and delay in collecting duties on every component. Any selective reduction of tax rates I suspect would go against any trade agreement with the EU.
Turning car plants into free trade zones is going to set an 'interesting' precedent...
As a thought experiment, a Free Port of Sunderland is actually quite an interesting idea, but as a policy for the UK car industry, I'm not even slightly convinced that this has been thought through. Let alone scrutinised.
Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?
Read the report.
Non-tariff barriers. Now, who said that? Repeatedly.
And how does it pertain to car parts?
oh...
ALL CAR ASSEMBLY FACTORY LOCATIONS TO BE MADE FREEPORTS AND EXEMPT FROM IMPORT DUTIES AND CONTROLS - RUMOUR.
Don't ports need to be somewhere near the sea ?
My nearest port is Heathrow.
Cars tend not to travel by air. And I must have missed Cowley airport.
Isn't there some Law of access to the sea treaty. Free port of Cowley would oblige rUK to provide access to a sea port for its goods. I think there is an active dispute between South American nations over this.
I had wondered whether we could invoke it for transit of Irish goods to the EU somehow, despite Ireland obviously having its own sea border.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more...
Makes sense... but imagine Brexit plus Corbynomics.
I think many Britons prefer a Corbyn Brexit to a Hannanite one.
That is the Nemesis that follows Hubris.
I think Corbyn has been very lucky to be in the right place at the right time. A lot of arguments the left have been making for a long time are beginning to look quite attractive at last. Even if Brexit collapses - which is looking quite possible - I don't think British politics is going back to where it was.
Gavin Williamson could be the next PM in a few months' time and I've just realised I don't even know what he sounds like. There have been quite a lot of pictures of him walking around Westminster on the news recently but not many with him actually talking.
There is a reason for that, I suspect. He simply doesn't have gravitas when talking.
@Richard_Nabavi pointed out his style might be a problem for him months ago. I doubt anything has changed.
I think Corbyn has been very lucky to be in the right place at the right time. A lot of arguments the left have been making for a long time are beginning to look quite attractive at last. Even if Brexit collapses - which is looking quite possible - I don't think British politics is going back to where it was.
It would be the country that is unlucky then because Corbyn is simply not up to high-end administration. As PM he would be a more malevolent, less competent and less charismatic version of May.
I would be considerably less worried about the takeover by the left if it were led by say Trickett, who may be an invisible idiot but is at least a fairly intelligent invisible idiot.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more...
Makes sense... but imagine Brexit plus Corbynomics.
I think many Britons prefer a Corbyn Brexit to a Hannanite one.
That is the Nemesis that follows Hubris.
I think Corbyn has been very lucky to be in the right place at the right time. A lot of arguments the left have been making for a long time are beginning to look quite attractive at last. Even if Brexit collapses - which is looking quite possible - I don't think British politics is going back to where it was.
The "unless" is, unless May can deliver on the agenda she set out in Downing Street upon taking office. Which of course she can't, for myriad reasons that don't need repeating. She did at least see clearly the nature and magnitude of the problem ahead of her party (as indeed she did all those years ago with the Nasty Party comment). It's a shame her analytical skills are so lonely.
The defence secretary came under renewed pressure when three former security chiefs said that a decision to move defence out of a Whitehall-wide review was a “backward step”.
Lord Ricketts, a former national security adviser, said in a veiled swipe at Gavin Williamson that he thought the move was driven by politics.
with only 6000 votes between him and Labour's candidate in Altrincham.... Brady will not want to fight a lacklustre election campaign under May.
As a constituent in Altrincham and Sale West, I would consider this seat as safe as houses for the Tories; they retained it even in the Labour landslide of 1997. The 2017 result flatters Labour to deceive; the anti-Tory vote got behind Labour in this pro-Remain area - Brady is a Brexiteer.
I am assuming that the boundary changes will not go through - if they do, Brady would be challenging McVey (now a cabinet minister) for the new seat of Altrincham and Knutsford.
The defence secretary came under renewed pressure when three former security chiefs said that a decision to move defence out of a Whitehall-wide review was a “backward step”.
Lord Ricketts, a former national security adviser, said in a veiled swipe at Gavin Williamson that he thought the move was driven by politics.
Where comes this illusion that you can choose your type of Brexit?
The Ben Bradshaw type negotiation ... we can stay in the common market and customs union if we want - is not Brexit, because it means FOM, obeying EU rules and paying the usual subs. I'm sure that can be negotiated. All it means is we lose influence. A bonus for the Europhiles.
The Labour pretend-Brexit is having the common market and customs union without freedom of movement or blind obedience to EU rules and the payments is nonsensical. If the EU agreed to that, they know it would herald the break-up of the EU. Every other country would want that too. And to back down on the four freedoms means they'd be exposed as paper tigers.
We are negotiating within these parameters. Trying to pretend that negotiating harder or better will achieve the Labour party goal is nonsensical and they know it. As for Bradshaw, he's just a lying toad, as usual.
Why don't the media spell this out?
At least, Mrs May was honest at the beginning. She may be incompetent but since when has honesty been a vice?
It’s highly annoying to read the overnight threads and see the same voices denying the economic downside of Brexit.
The Irish example is apposite. When you leave a larger market, you suffer - all things being equal. We are already some billions down where we would have been, according to the OBR and the IMF. You can rubbish that if you like but I’d rather take their econometric analysis than your armchair scoffing.
That’s money we could be spending on health, housing, or end-of-life care.
What the new analysis tells us is that any other FTAs will not compensate for the loss of the single market. Even Fox gets it. Time some of the PB Tories did!
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more...
Makes sense... but imagine Brexit plus Corbynomics.
I think many Britons prefer a Corbyn Brexit to a Hannanite one.
That is the Nemesis that follows Hubris.
I think Corbyn has been very lucky to be in the right place at the right time. A lot of arguments the left have been making for a long time are beginning to look quite attractive at last. Even if Brexit collapses - which is looking quite possible - I don't think British politics is going back to where it was.
This the appeal of Corbynism. Foreign military adventures, a casino banking economy, privatisation of public services, casualisation of the workforce and a life enslaved by debt have all lost their sheen. The consensus over the British and European economic and political settlement has well and truly broken. Corbyn sounds prophetic in times where few other predictions come true.
Economically, I think the good news has outweighed the bad over the past 18 months. I cannot categorically say that this is due to the Brexit vote, or that it will continue in the future, or that the news would not have been better still if the vote had gone the other way. But, it's been a lot better than most forecasters expected.
The developed world, and in particular the Eurozone, has put on a significant spurt of growth in the last 18 months.
I don't think that's due to Brexit, more to savings rates across the world now returning to more normal levels after having been elevated for some time.
I agree.
It is yet another level of complication for Brexit performance. When Osborne took over in 2010 the policy of "austerity" was substantially overstated compared to the reality. The result was that the UK economy continued to be stimulated by very large government deficits. This could have been offset by very poor wage growth but the Great British consumer dug into their already meagre savings to keep consumption growing. The result was that the UK outperformed the rest of the EU (where the German dominated ECB was imposing a much harsher regime) by a considerable distance.
In more recent times our deficit has in fact fallen to more "normal" levels. At the same time the consumer has found it more difficult to maintain spending after a very prolonged fall in real wages. The BoE has also stopped QE. All of these have resulted in a slow down in the UK economy although they have been offset by the fall in Sterling after the Brexit vote to some extent. In contrast the ECB has relaxed monetary policy somewhat on the continent belatedly taking up QE and the EU consumer has picked up the baton from the UK consumer to some degree. The result is that their growth has accelerated.
This really emphasises Robert's main point. The domestic policies of governments are vastly more important to growth than any possible friction arising in trade. Trying to identify a Brexit effect on growth will be impossible because domestic policy will completely swamp the marginal effects.
Gavin Williamson could be the next PM in a few months' time and I've just realised I don't even know what he sounds like. There have been quite a lot of pictures of him walking around Westminster on the news recently but not many with him actually talking.
All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more...
Makes sense... but imagine Brexit plus Corbynomics.
I think many Britons prefer a Corbyn Brexit to a Hannanite one.
That is the Nemesis that follows Hubris.
I think Corbyn has been very lucky to be in the right place at the right time. A lot of arguments the left have been making for a long time are beginning to look quite attractive at last. Even if Brexit collapses - which is looking quite possible - I don't think British politics is going back to where it was.
This the appeal of Corbynism. Foreign military adventures, a casino banking economy, privatisation of public services, casualisation of the workforce and a life enslaved by debt have all lost their sheen. The consensus over the British and European economic and political settlement has well and truly broken. Corbyn sounds prophetic in times where few other predictions come true.
I see that Brexit has once again this morning become a holy grail for Leavers, inexpressibly important but unexplainable, visible only to the purest. The quest continues, the costs irrelevant.
Mr. Meeks, that's a paradox I'm not sure you get. The very difficulty of leaving convinces many of those who were worried about the EU getting too much power that that's already the case and, whilst departing is troublesome, we're getting out before the tentacles tighten their grip and escape is impossible.
Things are going to be rocky, but hardcore Remainers need to beware they don't sound like they're siding with the EU against the UK.
"I se that Brexit has once again this morning become a holy grail for Leavers."
It's becoming that way. It's a sign that the ignored still have a say, despite the superior prognostications of the self-elected elite. A beacon for true democracy.
I voted Leave and would vote Leave again, but why should I have to?
Mr. Meeks, that's a paradox I'm not sure you get. The very difficulty of leaving convinces many of those who were worried about the EU getting too much power that that's already the case and, whilst departing is troublesome, we're getting out before the tentacles tighten their grip and escape is impossible.
Things are going to be rocky, but hardcore Remainers need to beware they don't sound like they're siding with the EU against the UK.
fair point. Leavers also need not to equate themselves with the UK.
Gavin Williamson could be the next PM in a few months' time and I've just realised I don't even know what he sounds like. There have been quite a lot of pictures of him walking around Westminster on the news recently but not many with him actually talking.
John Major
Major beat Heseltine in the final round but I am not sure Williamson would beat Boris, especially with the membership
Mr. Meeks, that's a paradox I'm not sure you get. The very difficulty of leaving convinces many of those who were worried about the EU getting too much power that that's already the case and, whilst departing is troublesome, we're getting out before the tentacles tighten their grip and escape is impossible.
Things are going to be rocky, but hardcore Remainers need to beware they don't sound like they're siding with the EU against the UK.
All I get is that Leavers are utterly unconcerned how much damage is inflicted on Britain so long as they get the most extreme separation from the EU that they can. They are unhinged.
Gavin Williamson could be the next PM in a few months' time and I've just realised I don't even know what he sounds like. There have been quite a lot of pictures of him walking around Westminster on the news recently but not many with him actually talking.
Quite posh despite his northern background, he spoke to Laura Kuenssberg after leaving Cabinet recently
Comments
You might prefer mutineer
The whole atmosphere in the Westminster village has been getting more and more unpleasant of recent times with threats and counter threats, and cover ups abound given the mutual dirt that everyone has in their own 'effective dossiers'. The chance of getting good government in this environment, irrespective of who you vote for is precisely nil.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/958108163542257664
Why do people think that scare tactics like this are a decent contribution to debate?
And then again, might not.
But like me, I'm sure you care more about democracy, right?
But at this moment, the Cabinet is tasked with reviewing what the effect will be, relative to staying in the EU, of the various options before them. The analysis will have looked at the differential impact, sector by sector, of the various scenarios to come up with a best estimate
(which will of course be wrong in detail). It would be a dereliction of their duty to just shrug and say well all forecasts are wrong.
Let me give two examples, and two warnings.
1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.
2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.
All that being said...
1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.
2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.
I also care a great deal about democracy and the lamentable state of democracy in this country (eg 80,000 elderly Tory members choosing the next PM and the direction of this country for decades!) but that is a different issue at this point.
And just to add, forecasts will likely have less impact with individuals than their own anecdata.
Oh, wait...
Forecast one:
We leave the EU, as the people decided they want to do. We experience growth over the next 15 years.
Forecast two:
We don't decide to leave the EU, despite the people deciding they wanted to. We experience slightly stronger growth over the next 15 years.
Two will result in more heartache, and, most certainly, a rejection of normal political means by some.
That is not a healthy or wealthy country.
"In the twentieth century mass emigration reached levels during the 1940s and 1950s that were reminiscent of the 1850s, in the aftermath of the Great Irish Famine."
http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/generationemigration/2011/11/02/traditions-of-emigration-the-irish-habit-of-going-away/
Fox is not forecasting anything - it is pretty clear that, as things stand at present, a hard Brexit (by virtually any definition I can think of) is unachievable. He still has his partiality but it's (for him) strangely constructive.
I have yet to hear even the most zealous Brexiter suggest that the unexpected surge in economic performance across the world, most notably in the Eurozone, was down to the Brexit vote! Just a shame Britain is benefiting less than most, eh?
Attempts by older women to moderate youthful anger are often seen as a gross abuse of their power
Jenny McCartney"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-metoo-fury-has-spilled-over-into-a-feminist-war/
I don't think that's due to Brexit, more to savings rates across the world now returning to more normal levels after having been elevated for some time.
How have ours moved compared with other countries?
That is the Nemesis that follows Hubris.
And I must have missed Cowley airport.
As a thought experiment, a Free Port of Sunderland is actually quite an interesting idea, but as a policy for the UK car industry, I'm not even slightly convinced that this has been thought through. Let alone scrutinised.
I had wondered whether we could invoke it for transit of Irish goods to the EU somehow, despite Ireland obviously having its own sea border.
@Richard_Nabavi pointed out his style might be a problem for him months ago. I doubt anything has changed.
I would be considerably less worried about the takeover by the left if it were led by say Trickett, who may be an invisible idiot but is at least a fairly intelligent invisible idiot.
Lord Ricketts, a former national security adviser, said in a veiled swipe at Gavin Williamson that he thought the move was driven by politics.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gavin-williamson-accused-of-playing-politics-on-defence-spending-07r82mx0m
I am assuming that the boundary changes will not go through - if they do, Brady would be challenging McVey (now a cabinet minister) for the new seat of Altrincham and Knutsford.
Finally got to see 'Darkest Hour' last night. Superb from Oldman.
The Ben Bradshaw type negotiation ... we can stay in the common market and customs union if we want - is not Brexit, because it means FOM, obeying EU rules and paying the usual subs. I'm sure that can be negotiated. All it means is we lose influence. A bonus for the Europhiles.
The Labour pretend-Brexit is having the common market and customs union without freedom of movement or blind obedience to EU rules and the payments is nonsensical. If the EU agreed to that, they know it would herald the break-up of the EU. Every other country would want that too. And to back down on the four freedoms means they'd be exposed as paper tigers.
We are negotiating within these parameters. Trying to pretend that negotiating harder or better will achieve the Labour party goal is nonsensical and they know it. As for Bradshaw, he's just a lying toad, as usual.
Why don't the media spell this out?
At least, Mrs May was honest at the beginning. She may be incompetent but since when has honesty been a vice?
https://www.business2community.com/government-politics/donald-trump-displaying-names-campaign-donors-state-union-fact-check-02003490
And to think we getting wound up about a photo of party officials outside No.10 recently....
The Irish example is apposite. When you leave a larger market, you suffer - all things being equal. We are already some billions down where we would have been, according to the OBR and the IMF. You can rubbish that if you like but I’d rather take their econometric analysis than your armchair scoffing.
That’s money we could be spending on health, housing, or end-of-life care.
What the new analysis tells us is that any other FTAs will not compensate for the loss of the single market. Even Fox gets it. Time some of the PB Tories did!
It is yet another level of complication for Brexit performance. When Osborne took over in 2010 the policy of "austerity" was substantially overstated compared to the reality. The result was that the UK economy continued to be stimulated by very large government deficits. This could have been offset by very poor wage growth but the Great British consumer dug into their already meagre savings to keep consumption growing. The result was that the UK outperformed the rest of the EU (where the German dominated ECB was imposing a much harsher regime) by a considerable distance.
In more recent times our deficit has in fact fallen to more "normal" levels. At the same time the consumer has found it more difficult to maintain spending after a very prolonged fall in real wages. The BoE has also stopped QE. All of these have resulted in a slow down in the UK economy although they have been offset by the fall in Sterling after the Brexit vote to some extent. In contrast the ECB has relaxed monetary policy somewhat on the continent belatedly taking up QE and the EU consumer has picked up the baton from the UK consumer to some degree. The result is that their growth has accelerated.
This really emphasises Robert's main point. The domestic policies of governments are vastly more important to growth than any possible friction arising in trade. Trying to identify a Brexit effect on growth will be impossible because domestic policy will completely swamp the marginal effects.
https://www.ft.com/content/a4381078-0295-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
Long live Chairman Mogg.
Down with the EU fifth column.
Down with the fascist running dogs to the EU hyena.
Move the capital of the UK to Boston.
Mr. CD13, quite. Following all the rules and having no say whatsoever is drunken madness.
Things are going to be rocky, but hardcore Remainers need to beware they don't sound like they're siding with the EU against the UK.
"I se that Brexit has once again this morning become a holy grail for Leavers."
It's becoming that way. It's a sign that the ignored still have a say, despite the superior prognostications of the self-elected elite. A beacon for true democracy.
I voted Leave and would vote Leave again, but why should I have to?