So Blair thinks "May is a lightweight and Corbyn a nutter" and that he should come back a rescue Britain from brexit.
Printable View
So Blair thinks "May is a lightweight and Corbyn a nutter" and that he should come back a rescue Britain from brexit.
The Times says Blair thinks that . . . remind me again what are we gaining with the Brexit thing?
Gaining? That won't take long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Done.
Well we got rid of that smarmy Cameron who will hopefully disappear into oblivion as should Blair. That apart I'm not so sure.
It's clear what were gaining DT - chaos, indecision and an economy going down the tubes. Unless, of course, it's a big bluff to lull Europe into thinking we don't know what we're doing.......
t.
Putting it in terms that some of you may understand, think of the EU as UKA and the UK as the FRA.
When the FRA joined UKA it was a tough decision. Ultimately, whilst the FRA still has a great deal of influence, the ultimate responsibility is with UKA.
UKA make all the rules, and whilst the FRA has influence on them, so do all the other "interested parties" and sometimes something may be put in place that doesn't best suit the interests of fell running, or an aspect of fell running.
The linkage to UKA is still an issue for some members of the FRA. There are costs and benefits.
I'd say with the EU, that the costs have eventually been deemed to outweigh the benefits.
If UKA were the EU then individuals excluded from races for rule infringements would appeal to UKA claiming it infringed their human rights to enjoy themselves.
Problem is, it would require an economist whole has carried out detailed research into the UK's trading/regulatory relationship with the EU to give a truly accourate answer to that question. Majority of us on here are only basing our opnions on hunches/guesses/prejudicesQuote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
This is about much more than pure economic cost / benefit.
For me it's much more about building / preserving the kind of Britain I would want to live in and I would want me kids to live in. An ever expanding population with accompanying infrastructure / housing etc. is not what I have in mind although I do realise much of this is not related to the EU.
Without a "Logan's run" type of culling, the population has to keep increasing to pay for all those retired people.
Given that it has never happened before I think we can say with considerable certainty that both the process and the effect of a country leaving the EU are totally unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I would not say "totally unknown ", once the Brexit details are known, the economists can get to work to put some costs to the new trading conditions.
How to you put a monetary value on being able to make our own decisions as a nation?
When I used the terms cost and benefit I wasn't talking about just monetary, in fact monetary is hardly a part of it at all.
However, in terms of economists, our independent OBR have forecasted poorly since they came in to place and everyone is expecting their forecasts tomorrow to be wrong.
But go back to the treasury forecast before the referendum. They actually gt part way there, but unfortunately the model they put forward was politically skewed.
The Remain model had an EU thriving, signing new trade deals, what you would call a dynamic forecast.
The comparable Leave model didn't even credit the UK with signing any bi-lateral deals between leaving and 2030.
A few examples:
If we take as a central assumption that the UK would seek a negotiated bilateral agreement, like Canada has, the costs to Britain are clear. Based on the Treasury’s estimates, our GDP would be 6.2% lower; families would be £4,300 worse off.
Direct quote from George Osborne taken from the Treasury Report opening comments.
When using the worst case scenario, the WTO model it comes out even worse at 7.5% / £5200
This makes it look like we will be poorer than we are now. What it really should say if it was being accurate and honest is:
“Based on our questionable economic model, if the UK votes to leave the EU, the UK will still continue to grow, it will still be economically successful, but just not quite as successful as if we stay in.”
The Treasury figures for this Canada style Brexit package, if accepted, show that the UK will have 31% higher GDP by 2030.
The Treasury assumed that with both Remain and Brexit, net migration would be 3 million by 2030. Yet with Brexit, even if the net migration does remain at 3 million, it is likely to be more selective and that should lead to a different demographic and should have a more positive effect on the UK economy than under EU freedom of movement.
The Treasury did not allow for any benefit from the removal of any EU regs on business following Brexit. Open Europe has done a report suggesting that Brexit could remove EU regs worth 1.3% GDP.
So on balance, when I examined the Treasury report which showed us to be less than 0.5% well off per annum by 2030 but still having had 31% GDP growth, I felt that cutting through the political crap, financially it would be broadly neutral or positive.
I scan read that WP so forgive me if I missed something crucial but, as part of the EU, we have in place trade agreements with 27 EU member states and getting on for a further 50 other countries around the world. To benefit from those trade agreements obviously the EU have to put in place regulations (and if we want to carry on trading with the EU when we've left, we'd have to continue to abide by those regulations).
If we therefore 'hard brexit, we'll be jeopardising c 77 already in place trade agreements with other countries in the hope that we can negotiate some new ones of our own..... eventually.
As for 'benefitting' from less regulation, the EU regulations include one heck of a lot of employment protection, consumer protection, conservation and environment rules which, should we lose them, will be a huge backward step. Less regulation is in many cases the last thing we need - think of the criminality of some investment banks in the past few years, their mis-selling of financial products, pay day loans, poor disclosure of emissions (VW) to get an edge, politicians lying left, right and centre etc etc. And that's all been possible within the current regulations. Yeah, less regulations sounds 'such' a good idea....
I haven't scan read yours :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
I agree with you Stolly. You make some fair points. Just one thing, the 50 trade deals that the EU have, include some pretty bogus ones like the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Faroes, Canaries...which are just simple accommodations for autonomous areas of the EU. A case of gilding the lily a little.
I was making the point that under the Treasury report, they found we would be around 0.5% per annum worse off by 2030 if we left the EU.
I accept that we have trade deals with the EU and there is a cost to leaving for some business and individuals.
But the 0.5% did not give even the scantest credit for any new deals that may arise after a Leave and by 2030 I think even the most pessimistic would expect us to have some deals in place.
Any new deals would help close the 0.5% up.
Companies that want to carry on selling to the EU will of course have to comply. But that is nothing new. I worked out of the Far East for 15 years and we had to be aware of EU regs, US regs etc I can tell you one of the worst was Clarks as they had CLarks UK and Clarks Companies North America and they bought the same product, in the same factories, made on the same tooling, but they had different labelling requirements, different physical testing environments and even different chemical regulations.
It was a nightmare at times.
In terms of regulation, the Open Europe figure undoubtedly contains things in the 1.3% GDP figure that we wouldn't want to lose. But it also includes regs we may well be happy to lose. So if we only lose 1/4 of what Open Europe says we can, that is a saving and closes the 0.5% gap again.
I'd argue against the EU being competent at regulating the financial sector. If there's likely to be another banking sector problem anytime soon, all the pundits are pointing towards the EU. They have broken all their regulatory rules around the Euro for political reasons. It staggers me how the currency has held up in the markets.
These are matters that should be done in the UK and then at the next level worldwide.
In terms of the labour protection, I'd like to see us do more, not less on leaving the EU. I don't see that we need to be in the EU and in fact while we have been in the EU and as we have continued to sign these treaties, I actually think the rights of workers have been eroded somewhat.
I would have though the UK was one of the main players holding back EU regulation of the financial sector.
It depends what you mean by holding back Patrick.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
There are two aspects to this, non Euro issues and Euro issues.
In terms of the Euro issues, any countries joining had to meet certain criteria. Portugal has never met the criteria, Spain rarely and even France and Germany play fast and lose with the rules.
In terms of pan European regulations, of course the Eurozone have for some time wanted to draw some of the business from the UK to Frankfurt and Paris, so there have been issues. Some may say the UK is holding back, others may say the UK is looking after its best interests.
If on the Euro points, the EU had behaved impeccably, then there may be more sympathy for the other part.
Some Remainers point to the £350 million a week subscription to the EU claim as evidence of Brexit voters falling victim to "post-truth" politics. I agree that the claim was misleading as it related to gross rather than net contributions but the Remain side was every bit as bad and the £4,300 household income claim is a very good example. It was a gross distortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
You mentioned some of the pitfalls in the forecast, i.e. presenting an increase in GDP as a fall and assuming the UK would have made no trade deals by 2030. In addition the Treasury report divided its projected GDP by total number of households as if this was a measure of household income. It isn't as GDP includes amounts attributable to companies. Current GDP per household is £68,000 while average income per household is £45,400.
Then even worse, to arrive at the £4,300 figure they divided projected total GDP in 2030 (which included for the expected increase in population) by total number of households today!
It's also interesting that they used households rather than per person, which you would expect. This was another attempt to inflate the figure and make it more eye catching.
And that's before you take into account that these people can't even accurately project into the next quarter let alone 14 years hence so for some Remainers to pretend that this forecast was "fact" was outrageous. Post-truth politics eh!
Except nobody but nobody believed the ludicrous £4,300 per household figure or took it seriously. Other than brexiteers rightly ridiculing it of course so, as propaganda, it mis-fired spectacularly and was a huge mistake. The lie about the £350 million a week though was truly believed by brexiteers and swallowed hook line and sinker. Even though the reality is that any saving of EU contributions is going to be dwarfed by the lost taxation revenue from our reduced GDP expectations
Can't you see there's a contradiction here. Remain BS is OK because everyone knew it was BS but everyone was sucked in by Leave BS is the essence of what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
Anyone studying politics will know that figures are presented to make a case. The £4300 figure was discredited, but nowhere near as much as the £350m and the strange thing is that the £350M is plucked straight from the ONS figures. It is fact. The £4300 was a guess and a guess using an economic model that was weighted in favour of Remain.
I'll tell you what I saw in the campaign that I think was a lie, or gross incompetence.
Cameron's claim that he would stay on if we voted to Leave.
Cameron's claim that he would invoke article 50 immediately if we voted Leave.
Several Remain campaigners suggesting our exports, and most often citing the car makers, would have to pay duty on their exports of cars to the EU if we left.
These were not opinions, the first two were entirely within Cameron's capabilities and the 3rd was either lies, or incompetent people talking about an issue they new little or nothing about.
Excellent points WP. You could also add Osborne's "punishment" budget that he was going to have to bring in immediately after we had voted to leave.
Stolly, I could also mention the 3 to 4 million jobs that would be lost if we left the EU lie that Nick Clegg and others have been peddling for the last few years.
The fact is that the Remain campaign knew that many British people were sceptical about the EU. They had no positive case to make for staying in so they focused on scaring people into doing so and had scant regard for whether what they were saying was true or not. So it's a bit rich to complain that people only voted out because they were lied to by "Leave". As I said the £350 million a week claim was misleading but at least it did have some basis in fact. It was addressed by the broadcasters ad nauseum on the news and in the debates.
What I believed was that there would be £350 million a week that the UK could spend how it wished, that much was true, was it not. I know we got some of that back one way or another but the EU dictated pretty much how that should be spent.
Almost everything else financial seems to be pure speculation one way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Mmmh. I suppose one interpretation of "misleading" could be cynical, blatant, immoral and outrageous lie.
Not quite. The £350 million is the gross contribution the UK makes if it is expressed per week. However, to knock off that is our rebate (obtained by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's) and amounts we get back from the EU in terms of grants and agricultural subsidies. It's probably fair to say that our net contribution is around half of the gross figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
The defence that Vote Leave made for using the Gross Figure is:
1) The rebate could be subject to change. We got it in the first place because the UK receives far less than other countries like France in agricultural subsidies. But Tony Blair negotiated some of it away in 2005.
2) As you say we have no control over the amount we get back from the EU in grants and subsidies. They decide how it is spent.
3) If somebody asked you your gross salary you would probably state the gross figure rather than the net amount after tax and national insurance.
I think using the £350 million figure was misleading but as I have said in other posts it was roundly criticised during the campaign and even if you said instead that we make a net contribution of about £175 million per week it is still a large amount of money.
My point was not the amount per-se but that we could choose how to spend it.
We haven't even triggered clause 50 yet. No one has a clue what might or might not happen when we do, never mind if and when we do leave the EU. However I'm detecting a lot of feel good factor in the country at the moment
Enjoy, freedom.
Both sides played that cardQuote:
focused on scaring people
No.Quote:
that much was true, was it not
Not getting anymore for the NHS either from the last statement I've seen
Only really comparable if you're trying to convince someone it's that take home payQuote:
3) If somebody asked you your gross salary you would probably state the gross figure rather than the net amount after tax and national insurance.
The numbers don't matter. As any fule noes they are subject to massage, misrepresentation, fudging, blatant lying etc etc.
It's the principle that drove the matter. Did I really pay any attention at all to the £350 mill number? Of course not! Obvious marketing fluff!
Should we be concerned about giving money to a bloated bureaucracy offshore to get it fed back as they saw fit? Yes I think we should.
Don't get hung up on headline grabbers...look to the underlying principle.
If we're concerned about the financial side of things...
Do you think the UK will be richer or poorer post-Brexit?
It's about what quantifies richer Noel. This GDP measure that seems to be the benchmark is a terrible way to measure the wealth of a country.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Whether richer or poorer financially, I think it will be a positive move when we look back in 10 years time.
You might be right. And it will be hard to tell. I think that's the best claim the Brexit camp can make at the moment - they certainly can no longer argue it's in the short-term interests of the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Perhaps we should take David Cameron's suggestion and start measuring happiness.
There's a joke there, deliberate?Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Why? What has happened that has changed anything in the short-term?Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The move in the £ makes exports a little more expensive, but it also makes exports easier. There are pros and cons but I can't see that we have anything in the short term to be negative about.
Now we have this leaving process and yes that could be made more complicated than need be. That's down to the personalities involved.
If you look at a few EU bods, they seem hurt, offended and they may let their personal opinions get in the way.
However, Mrs Merkel and the respective leaders of Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Holland and a few others, you will be under a lot of pressure to approach this task with pragmatism.
It really is down to them.
If I was the UK PM I would be leading on a proper economic break and head for WTO terms with a view to bi-lateral deals with the EU in areas that are mutually beneficial, which can be worked on after the break. That is in effect how the Swiss have managed and bi-lateral trade deals would seem the quickest way to work.
That doesn't initially need any accommodation from the EU as we leave, as we are not asking them for any special access.
However, I suspect the UK Government will look to secure substantial free trade access. As things stand that is free access for us to a market worth around £130 Billion a year based on current trading levels.
To the EU that is free access to a market worth around £200 Billion.
So the EU should be beating down our door to retain free trade.
Straight from the horse's mouth......don't panic, Captain Mainwaring...! ;)
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/...PWjQ&ocid=iehp
" Philip Hammond has admitted the Brexit vote’s blow to the economy would force the government to borrow £122bn more than hoped as he pushed back government plans to balance the books in his autumn statement."
I just don't believe people would have voted for this .....
If anyone is interested, watch out for thee Exiting the European Unions Select Committee that was on this morning on Parliament TV. They usually replay them a few times over the next week and it was really interesting.
Rather than the confrontational atmosphere of the Commons, the MPs get chance to ask questions of people with proper knowledge. These unfortunately are not the sort of people we get to see before the referendum and perhaps they should have set up a committee a year ago as it certainly offers a better quality of information and in a better environment.
You can see both Remain and Leave MPs learning things they didn't know.
Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, The Legatum Institute is a highly qualified international trade negotiator. He came out with some things I was aware of, but quite a lot I wasn't.
One example.
It has often said that the UK cannot just take back it's seat at the WTO. Mr Singham dispelled this. All the UK has done is to defer to the EU to negotiate trade deals on it's behalf and as long as the UK adopts the EU positions as it's starting point when retaking it's full position, it should not have any issues.
It could even be the case that the UK retains the existing deals with (for example) South Korea.
The only difficulty would come if the UK saught to change these tariff schedules in advance of taking back our position.
The slight complication is Agriculture, but as the UK breaking away is likely to be positive for WTO members outside of the EU as far as agriculture goes he felt this would not be a barrier.
He did however see problems for the EU, as their tariff schedules are on the basis of the UK being part of the EU. The EU is losing 20% of it's economic size and some agreements will need revising and it may not be so easy for them, mainly due to the CAP.
That says it all really. The brexit argument in a nutshell. Except of course when talking numbers about the 'cost' of being in the EU - those numbers are great. The benefits numbers and the massive likely cost of leaving though - those numbers are rubbishQuote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze