FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What are the positive benefits to the UK of a no-deal Brexit?
What are the positive benefits to the UK of a no-deal Brexit?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's a no deal Brexit? " Basically not getting a free trade deal with the EU, see also WTO or Australian deal. Whatever is called in reality it's a complete failure on behalf of the Brexiteers as non of them mentioned it during the referendum campaign in 2016, the only person who did that was David Cameroon and it was labelled good old project fear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's a no deal Brexit? Basically not getting a free trade deal with the EU, see also WTO or Australian deal. Whatever is called in reality it's a complete failure on behalf of the Brexiteers as non of them mentioned it during the referendum campaign in 2016, the only person who did that was David Cameroon and it was labelled good old project fear." So it's a deal but not a free trade deal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's a no deal Brexit? Basically not getting a free trade deal with the EU, see also WTO or Australian deal. Whatever is called in reality it's a complete failure on behalf of the Brexiteers as non of them mentioned it during the referendum campaign in 2016, the only person who did that was David Cameroon and it was labelled good old project fear. So it's a deal but not a free trade deal? " It's not a deal we revert to the default. It's a complete failure. What deal were you hoping for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's a no deal Brexit? Basically not getting a free trade deal with the EU, see also WTO or Australian deal. Whatever is called in reality it's a complete failure on behalf of the Brexiteers as non of them mentioned it during the referendum campaign in 2016, the only person who did that was David Cameroon and it was labelled good old project fear. So it's a deal but not a free trade deal? It's not a deal we revert to the default. It's a complete failure. What deal were you hoping for? " We revert to the default which is a deal. Like the majority of people I wasn't particularly hoping for any kind of deal one way or the other. Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's a no deal Brexit? Basically not getting a free trade deal with the EU, see also WTO or Australian deal. Whatever is called in reality it's a complete failure on behalf of the Brexiteers as non of them mentioned it during the referendum campaign in 2016, the only person who did that was David Cameroon and it was labelled good old project fear. So it's a deal but not a free trade deal? It's not a deal we revert to the default. It's a complete failure. What deal were you hoping for? We revert to the default which is a deal. Like the majority of people I wasn't particularly hoping for any kind of deal one way or the other. Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? " It isn't a deal it's trading on WTO terms. How do you not understand this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's a no deal Brexit? Basically not getting a free trade deal with the EU, see also WTO or Australian deal. Whatever is called in reality it's a complete failure on behalf of the Brexiteers as non of them mentioned it during the referendum campaign in 2016, the only person who did that was David Cameroon and it was labelled good old project fear. So it's a deal but not a free trade deal? It's not a deal we revert to the default. It's a complete failure. What deal were you hoping for? We revert to the default which is a deal. Like the majority of people I wasn't particularly hoping for any kind of deal one way or the other. Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? It isn't a deal it's trading on WTO terms. How do you not understand this?" WTO terms are a ready made deal between countries, how do not understand this? So are you not going to answer the questions on tariffs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? " Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's a no deal Brexit? Basically not getting a free trade deal with the EU, see also WTO or Australian deal. Whatever is called in reality it's a complete failure on behalf of the Brexiteers as non of them mentioned it during the referendum campaign in 2016, the only person who did that was David Cameroon and it was labelled good old project fear. So it's a deal but not a free trade deal? It's not a deal we revert to the default. It's a complete failure. What deal were you hoping for? We revert to the default which is a deal. Like the majority of people I wasn't particularly hoping for any kind of deal one way or the other. Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? It isn't a deal it's trading on WTO terms. How do you not understand this? WTO terms are a ready made deal between countries, how do not understand this? So are you not going to answer the questions on tariffs? " I answered your question it's not a deal...only an idiot would call it that. The WTO is a third party that is reverted to if you DONT have a deal it does not constitute and agreement between the 2 parties. This is why it is only seen as an backstop and in this context a complete failure. No country in the world trades soley on WTO terms Mauritania did for a while but have struck some trade deals since | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive." You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""A trade agreement (also known as trade pact) is a wide-ranging taxes, tariff and trade treaty that often includes investment guarantees. It exists when two or more countries agree on terms that help them trade with each other. The most common trade agreements are of the preferential and free trade types, which are concluded in order to reduce (or eliminate) tariffs, quotas and other trade restrictions on items traded between the signatories. "" And the sky is blue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? " You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? " Can you trade on worse terms than WTO? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? " So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks " Can you trade on worse terms than WTO? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks " The EU aren't, we are imposing them on ourselves the EU has always said if we wanted a trade deal they would not compromise the single market all along. Boris and Co promised all the benefits and no draw backs...this is reality, I'm afraid a lot of us saw it way back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks " It’s not the EU imposing tariffs it’s a requirement of WTO rules that all trading nations must follow in the absence of an trade agreement between countries or trading blocs. And no they cannot ignore these rules or not apply any tariffs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks Can you trade on worse terms than WTO?" Do you have to be in the WTO? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks It’s not the EU imposing tariffs it’s a requirement of WTO rules that all trading nations must follow in the absence of an trade agreement between countries or trading blocs. And no they cannot ignore these rules or not apply any tariffs. " By not having a trade deal I mean | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not suggesting it is anything to do with brexit but there is some great news this morning for the North East with the announcement from britishvolt that a massive new automotive battery factory is to be built in Blyth. The UK's first gigaplant is an investment of £2.6 billion, one of the largest ever industrial investments in the UK, creating 3,000 direct jobs and 5,000 across the supply chain"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks It’s not the EU imposing tariffs it’s a requirement of WTO rules that all trading nations must follow in the absence of an trade agreement between countries or trading blocs. And no they cannot ignore these rules or not apply any tariffs. By not having a trade deal I mean " How are the EU responsible for this, did they kick us out of The EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question posed in this thread was what are the benefits of no deal. So far we have blue passports Anything else ?" Over to Silverhorn!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 tariffs would drop.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes." So you still think we will save £350 million which we can give to the NHS ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will put tariffs on some goods and people will but less of them causing a stockpile in the relevant countries. But that’s ok we should be using our own goods more anyway and not exporting so much only to them import the same from other countries. Once they see that brits are not buying fancy french wines cheeses ect (just examples) just before someone child I with “it’s not that simple” tariffs would drop.
"Jesus Christ, are you a negotiator? You do know the EU doesn't just deal with us don't you? You do know about economies of scale, the they need us more than we need them line sailed years ago. Of course there will be a trade deal at some point but the fact we haven't negotiated one by now is a complete failure given the claims made. The deal will not favour us because we'll be going cap in hand when reality hit in the event of No deal/ WTO terms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes." We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes." That’s countered by the increase in bureaucracy involved in administration of all the WTO rules and the increased tax burden on everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question posed in this thread was what are the benefits of no deal. So far we have blue passports Anything else ? Over to Silverhorn!!!" Well answer this first - what will happen with the tax collected on imported EU goods? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks It’s not the EU imposing tariffs it’s a requirement of WTO rules that all trading nations must follow in the absence of an trade agreement between countries or trading blocs. And no they cannot ignore these rules or not apply any tariffs. " Yes you can ,there is nothing to stop anyone trading under wto rules without applying tariffs.You need to do some homework .  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks It’s not the EU imposing tariffs it’s a requirement of WTO rules that all trading nations must follow in the absence of an trade agreement between countries or trading blocs. And no they cannot ignore these rules or not apply any tariffs. Yes you can ,there is nothing to stop anyone trading under wto rules without applying tariffs.You need to do some homework . "It requires both parties to agree and also applying those terms to everyone! Do you really want that to happen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question posed in this thread was what are the benefits of no deal. So far we have blue passports Anything else ? Over to Silverhorn!!! Well answer this first - what will happen with the tax collected on imported EU goods? " It's an doesn't matter trading on WTO terms doesn't not constitute a deal....Just accept it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? " Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks It’s not the EU imposing tariffs it’s a requirement of WTO rules that all trading nations must follow in the absence of an trade agreement between countries or trading blocs. And no they cannot ignore these rules or not apply any tariffs. Yes you can ,there is nothing to stop anyone trading under wto rules without applying tariffs.You need to do some homework .
It requires both parties to agree and also applying those terms to everyone! Do you really want that to happen?"All it means that if you apply zero tariffs it applies to everyone you dont need to agree anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. " How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. So you still think we will save £350 million which we can give to the NHS ?" I don’t think any increased money should go to the NHS until they stop wasting it on management consultants, appalling procurement practices, agency administrators etc etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks It’s not the EU imposing tariffs it’s a requirement of WTO rules that all trading nations must follow in the absence of an trade agreement between countries or trading blocs. And no they cannot ignore these rules or not apply any tariffs. Yes you can ,there is nothing to stop anyone trading under wto rules without applying tariffs.You need to do some homework .
It requires both parties to agree and also applying those terms to everyone! Do you really want that to happen?All it means that if you apply zero tariffs it applies to everyone you dont need to agree anything."This is seen as a massively bad move by all economists outside of Patrick Minford. It won't happen and I'm willing to bet you it won't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps it will mean a resurgence in our own manufacturing industry and more employment opportunities for those living in the UK. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this" How much will we save on not sending 75% of vat to the eu? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" WTO terms are a ready made deal between countries, how do not understand this? So are you not going to answer the questions on tariffs? " Trading on WTO rules is not any form of deal in relation to free trade agreements. WTO rules are for Countries that don't have any form of trade agreements with each other. Using WTO is the result of a failure to reach free trade agreements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this" 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like thisHow much will we save on not sending 75% of vat to the eu?" Trying to make a fiscal/financial justification for Brexit is futile, stick to sovereignty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope?" On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? " The additional costs through import taxes are collected by the government from the company doing the importing which in turn increases the prices of their goods that they sell to the British public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes." Like the House of Lords? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question posed in this thread was what are the benefits of no deal. So far we have blue passports Anything else ? Over to Silverhorn!!! Well answer this first - what will happen with the tax collected on imported EU goods? It's an doesn't matter trading on WTO terms doesn't not constitute a deal....Just accept it." OK so you can't or won't answer. I'm not surprised | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links." You can also look at pretty much any economic forecast outside of Patrick Minford and it'll tell you No Deal is a bad idea, Tariffs are factored into this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? The additional costs through import taxes are collected by the government from the company doing the importing which in turn increases the prices of their goods that they sell to the British public. " And what can they do with those taxes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question posed in this thread was what are the benefits of no deal. So far we have blue passports Anything else ? Over to Silverhorn!!! Well answer this first - what will happen with the tax collected on imported EU goods? It's an doesn't matter trading on WTO terms doesn't not constitute a deal....Just accept it. OK so you can't or won't answer. I'm not surprised " I've started another thread mate, I answered WTO does not constitute a deal with the EU and never will. Why do you think it's the same thing as No-Deal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. Like the House of Lords? " House of Lords? It’s almost like one thing has got nothing to do with the other | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ‘straw clutching ‘ by Brexit voters on this thread is hilarious "I know, look at Silverhorn...He's trying to convince himself....I thought he wanted No-Deal!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. You can also look at pretty much any economic forecast outside of Patrick Minford and it'll tell you No Deal is a bad idea, Tariffs are factored into this. " No, you said “Brexit has (already) cost as much as our total contributions”, see above. So are you asking about the current cost to date, or are you now talking about forecasts about the future? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tell me, what will happen to the tariffs imposed on imported EU goods? Does that really need an explanation.... But just for you.... The majority of tariffs end up being passed on to the end consumer. So food and other consumer goods become more expensive. You do know that a tariff is a tax don't you? So who collects that tax? You do know the idea of a trade deal is to stop or reduce tariffs, WTO is the worst case scenario so how can you define it as a deal? So why would the EU want to impose tariffs when they have a trade deficit with the UK? Its not economics is it, its political bollocks It’s not the EU imposing tariffs it’s a requirement of WTO rules that all trading nations must follow in the absence of an trade agreement between countries or trading blocs. And no they cannot ignore these rules or not apply any tariffs. Yes you can ,there is nothing to stop anyone trading under wto rules without applying tariffs.You need to do some homework . "Arranging an agreement to do so is called a Trade Agreement so any agreement on certain products that have no or reduced duty is a "Trade Agreement" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this How much will we save on not sending 75% of vat to the eu?" Incorrect " 1. Traditional resources Member states give 75% of customs, agriculture, sugar and isoglucose levies to the EU. The remaining 25% are then kept to cover the costs of administration. 2. VAT-based resources Member States contribute a standardised 0.3% of their total VAT income. " I can't believe people still don't understand what we paid and how. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. Like the House of Lords? House of Lords? It’s almost like one thing has got nothing to do with the other "So your happy with paying for the House of Lords? Anyway, this thread is about the benefits of a no deal Brexit? Have you managed to find one ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this How much will we save on not sending 75% of vat to the eu? Incorrect 1. Traditional resources Member states give 75% of customs, agriculture, sugar and isoglucose levies to the EU. The remaining 25% are then kept to cover the costs of administration. 2. VAT-based resources Member States contribute a standardised 0.3% of their total VAT income. I can't believe people still don't understand what we paid and how. " Try reading this. https://fullfact.org/europe/does-uk-pay-fifth-vat-going-eu-budget/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this How much will we save on not sending 75% of vat to the eu? Incorrect 1. Traditional resources Member states give 75% of customs, agriculture, sugar and isoglucose levies to the EU. The remaining 25% are then kept to cover the costs of administration. 2. VAT-based resources Member States contribute a standardised 0.3% of their total VAT income. I can't believe people still don't understand what we paid and how. Try reading this. https://fullfact.org/europe/does-uk-pay-fifth-vat-going-eu-budget/" So a no deal is actually better for the UK than the original deal we had with the EU? That’s good to know, btw, I thought the UK exported more than they imported to the EU?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, this thread is about the benefits of a no deal Brexit? Have you managed to find one ? "Yes we have found one. The blue passport. !!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. Like the House of Lords? House of Lords? It’s almost like one thing has got nothing to do with the other
So your happy with paying for the House of Lords? Anyway, this thread is about the benefits of a no deal Brexit? Have you managed to find one ? "Lol you asked about the House of Lords so I politely answered. Yes I’ve given you a benefit see above if you’re confused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links." “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hang on..trying to keep track of the benefits here" Best find yourself a thick notepad to list them all down as they are mentioned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. " I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question posed in this thread was what are the benefits of no deal. So far we have blue passports Anything else ? Over to Silverhorn!!! Well answer this first - what will happen with the tax collected on imported EU goods? It's an doesn't matter trading on WTO terms doesn't not constitute a deal....Just accept it. OK so you can't or won't answer. I'm not surprised " You think something that is literally named No Deal, is a deal! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite?" Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. " Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. " What was my question before? I mean are you claiming we haven't lost GDP because of the Brexit vote? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate" https://fullfact.org/economy/how-accurate-have-brexit-forecasts-been-referendum/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On another thread someone said British farmers can chop their hedges down" I'm sure hedges are going to be the least of most farmers worries soon! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this How much will we save on not sending 75% of vat to the eu? Incorrect 1. Traditional resources Member states give 75% of customs, agriculture, sugar and isoglucose levies to the EU. The remaining 25% are then kept to cover the costs of administration. 2. VAT-based resources Member States contribute a standardised 0.3% of their total VAT income. I can't believe people still don't understand what we paid and how. Try reading this. https://fullfact.org/europe/does-uk-pay-fifth-vat-going-eu-budget/" . You really aren't making any sense Costa. You've stated out of thin air that the UK sent 75% of our VAT to the EU. I quoted you the VAT contribution calculation the UK send to the EU according to The Office of National Statistics. You then quote Full Fact that states we send just under 20% of VAT
So are you saying it's 75% of VAT or 19/20% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps it will mean a resurgence in our own manufacturing industry and more employment opportunities for those living in the UK. " Quite right. Although a free trade deal would be easier all round the higher price of imported goods from the EU would encourage people to buy more domestic products which in turn would create more jobs for people supplying those products. As we import more from the EU than we export the taxes raised on the imports could be used to support exporters through lower taxes or whatever, even leaving money left over to invest in new and existing businesses, creating even more jobs. More jobs means more competition for workers and higher wages. Quite simple really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps it will mean a resurgence in our own manufacturing industry and more employment opportunities for those living in the UK. Quite right. Although a free trade deal would be easier all round the higher price of imported goods from the EU would encourage people to buy more domestic products which in turn would create more jobs for people supplying those products. As we import more from the EU than we export the taxes raised on the imports could be used to support exporters through lower taxes or whatever, even leaving money left over to invest in new and existing businesses, creating even more jobs. More jobs means more competition for workers and higher wages. Quite simple really "Ahh, the North Korean model there!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate" The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? " "So forecasts shortly after the referendum were fairly accurate over the medium term, but not from year to year." "In its last economic forecast before the referendum in March 2018, the OBR forecasted GDP to grow by roughly 6.4% between 2015 and 2018. Post-referendum the OBR revised this down to roughly 5.3%—slightly higher than the actual GDP growth of 4.9%." You didn't quote those bit I see, where's your link for Brexit not being damaging? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? " "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. Like the House of Lords? House of Lords? It’s almost like one thing has got nothing to do with the other
So your happy with paying for the House of Lords? Anyway, this thread is about the benefits of a no deal Brexit? Have you managed to find one ?
Lol you asked about the House of Lords so I politely answered.
Yes I’ve given you a benefit see above if you’re confused. "Only one benefit? Surely there must be a few more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] "" “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money." Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money." Still waiting for your forecasts saying Brexit will be be good for the economy!!!! You can pick holes but just saying they don't always get it right won't wash, why are forecast even a thing if this is the case. Just face it, Brexit is going to harm the economy and the Brexit Vote already has. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ? "Germany you say? They’re currently the biggest EU rule breakers: “Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.” France you say? “France tops list for providing unlawful tax breaks using state aid The European Commission has issued warnings about more than 380 potentially unlawful tax breaks in the last five years, with France being singled out for contravention of state aid rules, as well as low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg” Surely you’ve got one good example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ?
Germany you say? They’re currently the biggest EU rule breakers:
“Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.”
France you say?
“France tops list for providing unlawful tax breaks using state aid
The European Commission has issued warnings about more than 380 potentially unlawful tax breaks in the last five years, with France being singled out for contravention of state aid rules, as well as low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg”
Surely you’ve got one good example? "That's not a GDP comparison, I thought you disliked it when the goalposts are shifted?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Still waiting for your forecasts saying Brexit will be be good for the economy!!!! You can pick holes but just saying they don't always get it right won't wash, why are forecast even a thing if this is the case. Just face it, Brexit is going to harm the economy and the Brexit Vote already has." Forecasters exist to employ people and to provide politicians with convenient independent answers regardless of reality. Lol at all the salty remainer tears | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ?
Germany you say? They’re currently the biggest EU rule breakers:
“Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.”
France you say?
“France tops list for providing unlawful tax breaks using state aid
The European Commission has issued warnings about more than 380 potentially unlawful tax breaks in the last five years, with France being singled out for contravention of state aid rules, as well as low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg”
Surely you’ve got one good example?
That's not a GDP comparison, I thought you disliked it when the goalposts are shifted??"Even when that GDP is generated by breaking the rules? You don’t see the connection? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ?
Germany you say? They’re currently the biggest EU rule breakers:
“Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.”
France you say?
“France tops list for providing unlawful tax breaks using state aid
The European Commission has issued warnings about more than 380 potentially unlawful tax breaks in the last five years, with France being singled out for contravention of state aid rules, as well as low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg”
Surely you’ve got one good example?
That's not a GDP comparison, I thought you disliked it when the goalposts are shifted??
Even when that GDP is generated by breaking the rules? You don’t see the connection? "No, we could have done the same! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Still waiting for your forecasts saying Brexit will be be good for the economy!!!! You can pick holes but just saying they don't always get it right won't wash, why are forecast even a thing if this is the case. Just face it, Brexit is going to harm the economy and the Brexit Vote already has. Forecasters exist to employ people and to provide politicians with convenient independent answers regardless of reality. Lol at all the salty remainer tears "That's a no then and for all your words you are as clueless as Silverhorn, Costas and the rest...Wonder if they have friends in the city? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. If this is the case then why are 25 trade deals we have rolled over or redone only worth about a 11% of our exports compared to 43-44% that the the EU 27 represents? This includes Canada, Japan and Switzerland! " Fullfact.org (the website you keep quoting): “The WTO told us that roughly half of world trade in terms of value is done on WTO terms with no tariffs, another quarter is on WTO terms with tariffs, and the last quarter is done as part of trade agreements. However, because some of the trade done via trade agreements is potentially still traded on the same terms as if it was on WTO terms, they estimate that 17% of world trade uses a trade agreement to reduce tariffs.” Gosh, it’s almost as if most of the rest of the world trades under WTO rules, with or without tariffs and their own individual countries bilateral agreements. Imagine that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ?
Germany you say? They’re currently the biggest EU rule breakers:
“Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.”
France you say?
“France tops list for providing unlawful tax breaks using state aid
The European Commission has issued warnings about more than 380 potentially unlawful tax breaks in the last five years, with France being singled out for contravention of state aid rules, as well as low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg”
Surely you’ve got one good example?
That's not a GDP comparison, I thought you disliked it when the goalposts are shifted??
Even when that GDP is generated by breaking the rules? You don’t see the connection?
No, we could have done the same!"We could have broken the rules and fiddled the figures when we were part of the EU? That’s seriously your argument???? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. If this is the case then why are 25 trade deals we have rolled over or redone only worth about a 11% of our exports compared to 43-44% that the the EU 27 represents? This includes Canada, Japan and Switzerland! Fullfact.org (the website you keep quoting): “The WTO told us that roughly half of world trade in terms of value is done on WTO terms with no tariffs, another quarter is on WTO terms with tariffs, and the last quarter is done as part of trade agreements. However, because some of the trade done via trade agreements is potentially still traded on the same terms as if it was on WTO terms, they estimate that 17% of world trade uses a trade agreement to reduce tariffs.” Gosh, it’s almost as if most of the rest of the world trades under WTO rules, with or without tariffs and their own individual countries bilateral agreements. Imagine that "So, are WTO terms better than the current trading arrangement with the EU? NO, they are not. Our literacy rate is above 99% should be go for the world percentage of 86% or would that be a backwards step? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Still waiting for your forecasts saying Brexit will be be good for the economy!!!! You can pick holes but just saying they don't always get it right won't wash, why are forecast even a thing if this is the case. Just face it, Brexit is going to harm the economy and the Brexit Vote already has. Forecasters exist to employ people and to provide politicians with convenient independent answers regardless of reality. Lol at all the salty remainer tears
That's a no then and for all your words you are as clueless as Silverhorn, Costas and the rest...Wonder if they have friends in the city?"You started off by claiming that Bloomberg had calculated that Brexit had cost 138 billion already, turned out it was an estimate. You then got muddled up by talking about forecasts instead. I’ve proved to you that forecasts are worthless. And now, you’re asking me to point to forecasts in support of my argument? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ?
Germany you say? They’re currently the biggest EU rule breakers:
“Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.”
France you say?
“France tops list for providing unlawful tax breaks using state aid
The European Commission has issued warnings about more than 380 potentially unlawful tax breaks in the last five years, with France being singled out for contravention of state aid rules, as well as low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg”
Surely you’ve got one good example? "Hilarious, anyway, back to the OP, how many benefits have we found? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. If this is the case then why are 25 trade deals we have rolled over or redone only worth about a 11% of our exports compared to 43-44% that the the EU 27 represents? This includes Canada, Japan and Switzerland! Fullfact.org (the website you keep quoting): “The WTO told us that roughly half of world trade in terms of value is done on WTO terms with no tariffs, another quarter is on WTO terms with tariffs, and the last quarter is done as part of trade agreements. However, because some of the trade done via trade agreements is potentially still traded on the same terms as if it was on WTO terms, they estimate that 17% of world trade uses a trade agreement to reduce tariffs.” Gosh, it’s almost as if most of the rest of the world trades under WTO rules, with or without tariffs and their own individual countries bilateral agreements. Imagine that
So, are WTO terms better than the current trading arrangement with the EU?
NO, they are not. Our literacy rate is above 99% should be go for the world percentage of 86% or would that be a backwards step?"This is the same EU that doesn’t have a trade deal with the USA despite the process starting in 1990? That EU yes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Still waiting for your forecasts saying Brexit will be be good for the economy!!!! You can pick holes but just saying they don't always get it right won't wash, why are forecast even a thing if this is the case. Just face it, Brexit is going to harm the economy and the Brexit Vote already has. Forecasters exist to employ people and to provide politicians with convenient independent answers regardless of reality. Lol at all the salty remainer tears
That's a no then and for all your words you are as clueless as Silverhorn, Costas and the rest...Wonder if they have friends in the city?
You started off by claiming that Bloomberg had calculated that Brexit had cost 138 billion already, turned out it was an estimate.
You then got muddled up by talking about forecasts instead. I’ve proved to you that forecasts are worthless.
And now, you’re asking me to point to forecasts in support of my argument? "Forecasts aren't worthless though are they, you just don't like them because non back up your point of view, granted non will be spot on but to just dismiss them is idiotic. You can't find a credible forecast for a successful brexit...there isn't one. Are you claiming Brexit and the vote hasn't and isn't going to cost the country. Please supply some evidence you are very quick to ridicule mine but have non yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. If this is the case then why are 25 trade deals we have rolled over or redone only worth about a 11% of our exports compared to 43-44% that the the EU 27 represents? This includes Canada, Japan and Switzerland! Fullfact.org (the website you keep quoting): “The WTO told us that roughly half of world trade in terms of value is done on WTO terms with no tariffs, another quarter is on WTO terms with tariffs, and the last quarter is done as part of trade agreements. However, because some of the trade done via trade agreements is potentially still traded on the same terms as if it was on WTO terms, they estimate that 17% of world trade uses a trade agreement to reduce tariffs.” Gosh, it’s almost as if most of the rest of the world trades under WTO rules, with or without tariffs and their own individual countries bilateral agreements. Imagine that
So, are WTO terms better than the current trading arrangement with the EU?
NO, they are not. Our literacy rate is above 99% should be go for the world percentage of 86% or would that be a backwards step?
This is the same EU that doesn’t have a trade deal with the USA despite the process starting in 1990? That EU yes? "What's your point, we are at the back of that queue now too and having to try and strike a deal with our biggest trading partner, one you have just pointed out is slow and now pissed off with us.....Doesn't bode well does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ?
Germany you say? They’re currently the biggest EU rule breakers:
“Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.”
France you say?
“France tops list for providing unlawful tax breaks using state aid
The European Commission has issued warnings about more than 380 potentially unlawful tax breaks in the last five years, with France being singled out for contravention of state aid rules, as well as low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg”
Surely you’ve got one good example?
Hilarious, anyway, back to the OP, how many benefits have we found? "You’re discovering more benefits as the thread goes on as I educate you. For example getting a trade deal with America. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Still waiting for your forecasts saying Brexit will be be good for the economy!!!! You can pick holes but just saying they don't always get it right won't wash, why are forecast even a thing if this is the case. Just face it, Brexit is going to harm the economy and the Brexit Vote already has. Forecasters exist to employ people and to provide politicians with convenient independent answers regardless of reality. Lol at all the salty remainer tears
That's a no then and for all your words you are as clueless as Silverhorn, Costas and the rest...Wonder if they have friends in the city?
You started off by claiming that Bloomberg had calculated that Brexit had cost 138 billion already, turned out it was an estimate.
You then got muddled up by talking about forecasts instead. I’ve proved to you that forecasts are worthless.
And now, you’re asking me to point to forecasts in support of my argument?
Forecasts aren't worthless though are they, you just don't like them because non back up your point of view, granted non will be spot on but to just dismiss them is idiotic.
You can't find a credible forecast for a successful brexit...there isn't one.
Are you claiming Brexit and the vote hasn't and isn't going to cost the country.
Please supply some evidence you are very quick to ridicule mine but have non yourself. "I asked you for literally any forecaster with a proven track record who we could then look at for a Brexit forecast. Still waiting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. If this is the case then why are 25 trade deals we have rolled over or redone only worth about a 11% of our exports compared to 43-44% that the the EU 27 represents? This includes Canada, Japan and Switzerland! Fullfact.org (the website you keep quoting): “The WTO told us that roughly half of world trade in terms of value is done on WTO terms with no tariffs, another quarter is on WTO terms with tariffs, and the last quarter is done as part of trade agreements. However, because some of the trade done via trade agreements is potentially still traded on the same terms as if it was on WTO terms, they estimate that 17% of world trade uses a trade agreement to reduce tariffs.” Gosh, it’s almost as if most of the rest of the world trades under WTO rules, with or without tariffs and their own individual countries bilateral agreements. Imagine that
So, are WTO terms better than the current trading arrangement with the EU?
NO, they are not. Our literacy rate is above 99% should be go for the world percentage of 86% or would that be a backwards step?
This is the same EU that doesn’t have a trade deal with the USA despite the process starting in 1990? That EU yes?
What's your point, we are at the back of that queue now too and having to try and strike a deal with our biggest trading partner, one you have just pointed out is slow and now pissed off with us.....Doesn't bode well does it?"That was Obama you’re quoting, Obama of the red lines in Syria, Guantanamo and Afghanistan fame yeah? Change is coming, that guy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A massive reduction in the amount of politicians and bureaucracy paid for out of our taxes. We are trying to employ 50,000 customs officials at the moment (more that the whole of the EU) is that a saving? Even if your figure is a net increase of 50,000 employees, total cost would be maximum 1.5 billion per year, against 9 billion a year to the EU. Have you got a more difficult question, that was far too easy. How much will leaving the single market cost us? Also, Bearing in mind Brexits pretty much cost as much as our total contributions to the EU do you feel silly trying to make a finacial arguement like this 1) On your figures, 1.5 billion, just answered that. 2) No idea what calculation you’re referring to, please link a source. Or is from the back of your envelope? On Bloombergs calculations! Google it I'm not sure of the rules regarding links. “Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. “ Oops, not a calculation then. I said "pretty sure" I didn't claim for certain as at the time it was a bit short. Are you claiming we're be better off or the same as we would have been, I'm pretty sure looking at financial forecast it will be fairly accurate as we have a year of extra losses since that study! Once again, find me a finical forecast that say a No Deal Brexit or any Brexit for that matter will be better than remaining would have been!!! Do you want me to post ones that say the opposite? Ok, so you’ve now changed the question to talking about forecasts, good, just so we’re clear. “We find little evidence that any forecaster consistently predicts better than the consensus (median) forecast and, further, we find that forecasters who gave better-than-average predictions in one year were unable to sustain their superior forecasting performance—at least no more than random chance would suggest.” I know a lot of City workers who will tell you exactly this, there are no consistently accurate forecasters. Please point at just one with a proven medium or long term track record then we will examine their Brexit predictions. Think you'll find the OBR are pretty accurate The OBR you say? Oops no, straight from the fact checker you reference fullfact.org : “Notoriously, economic forecasters failed to predict the financial crisis in 2008 and were poor at forecasting the recovery.” “ A figure from a forecast is not a fact. Often there is simply not enough data, an incomplete understanding of key relationships and an inability to foresee big shocks for forecasts to be thought of as anything other than indications.” I’m sure you’re aware that the OBR has only existed since 2010 so didn’t get a chance to fail to predict the 2008 crisis. Surely you’ve got a better example? "Immediate impact on the UK economy According to one study, the referendum result had pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, leading to an annual cost of £404 for the average British household.[8] Studies published in 2018 estimated that the economic costs of the Brexit vote were 2% of GDP,[9][10][11] or 2.5% of GDP.[12] According to a December 2017 Financial Times analysis, the Brexit referendum results had reduced national British income by 0.6% and 1.3%.[13] A 2018 analysis by Stanford University and Nottingham University economists estimated that uncertainty around Brexit reduced investment by businesses by approximately 6 percentage points and caused an employment reduction by 1.5 percentage points.[14] A number of studies found that Brexit-induced uncertainty about the UK's future trade policy reduced British international trade from June 2016 onwards.[15][16][17][18][19] A 2019 analysis found that British firms substantially increased offshoring to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, whereas European firms reduced new investments in the UK.[20][21] Short-term macroeconomic forecasts by the Bank of England and other banks of what would happen immediately after the Brexit referendum were too pessimistic.[22] The assessments assumed that the referendum results would create greater uncertainty in markets and reduce consumer confidence more than it did.[22] A number of economists noted that short-term macroeconomic forecasts are generally considered unreliable, as they are something that academic economists do not do, but rather banks do.[23][24][22][25] Economists have compared short-term economic forecasts to weather forecasts whereas the long-term economic forecasts are akin to climate forecasts: the methodologies used in long-term forecasts are "well-established and robust".[22][23][25][26] Long-term impact on the UK economy There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[25] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[25] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42] According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][25] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[25] " “Most economists” is quoted four times in your reply above. I’ve already shown you that “most” (all) economists have no long term track record for accuracy. You are confusing Brexit with pre Brexit uncertainty over the terms of the future relationship. There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. Brussels was developed purely as a retirement scheme for failed national politicians to enable them to scoff lobster and champagne with our money. Is the last paragraph just your opinion ? Btw, why don’t you do a GDP comparison with Germany & France ?
Germany you say? They’re currently the biggest EU rule breakers:
“Numbers provided to German newspaper Handelsblatt by the country’s economics ministry show the country’s government is subject to 74 infringement proceedings by the European Commission for failing to implement EU regulations properly in German law.”
France you say?
“France tops list for providing unlawful tax breaks using state aid
The European Commission has issued warnings about more than 380 potentially unlawful tax breaks in the last five years, with France being singled out for contravention of state aid rules, as well as low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg”
Surely you’ve got one good example?
Hilarious, anyway, back to the OP, how many benefits have we found?
You’re discovering more benefits as the thread goes on as I educate you. For example getting a trade deal with America. "So a benefit of a no deal is getting a trade deal with America? That is hilarious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hilarious, anyway, back to the OP, how many benefits have we found? "Putting the economic arguments aside. Though on balance show a negative impact to the economy. Unless links can be posted to that prove otherwise rather than selected excerpts. What we have so far is.... Blue passports, printed in Poland, an EU county. Farmers being able to cut their hedges at a detriment to wildlife. I’ve got a whole team of paper I need to fill with all these positives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 205 countries in the world. 178 of them are not in the EU. Most of the non EU countries do far better than say Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life, life expectancy etc. If this is the case then why are 25 trade deals we have rolled over or redone only worth about a 11% of our exports compared to 43-44% that the the EU 27 represents? This includes Canada, Japan and Switzerland! Fullfact.org (the website you keep quoting): “The WTO told us that roughly half of world trade in terms of value is done on WTO terms with no tariffs, another quarter is on WTO terms with tariffs, and the last quarter is done as part of trade agreements. However, because some of the trade done via trade agreements is potentially still traded on the same terms as if it was on WTO terms, they estimate that 17% of world trade uses a trade agreement to reduce tariffs.” Gosh, it’s almost as if most of the rest of the world trades under WTO rules, with or without tariffs and their own individual countries bilateral agreements. Imagine that
So, are WTO terms better than the current trading arrangement with the EU?
NO, they are not. Our literacy rate is above 99% should be go for the world percentage of 86% or would that be a backwards step?
This is the same EU that doesn’t have a trade deal with the USA despite the process starting in 1990? That EU yes?
What's your point, we are at the back of that queue now too and having to try and strike a deal with our biggest trading partner, one you have just pointed out is slow and now pissed off with us.....Doesn't bode well does it?
That was Obama you’re quoting, Obama of the red lines in Syria, Guantanamo and Afghanistan fame yeah? Change is coming, that guy? "Biden, is pretty much instep with Obama, Obama was a lot better for the US economy after 2008 than the tories were over here! Trump basically rode on his coat tails. But the point is Biden doesn't like Johnson and thinks Brexit is a bad idea and a risk to Ireland. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? " Good luck with that, I've had one claiming its a deal still and another claiming that forecasts are unreliable but unable to find one unreliable in their favour! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listened to a Scottish farmer talking about not knowing what paperwork will be required for him to continue with his European customers, in the event of a no deal outcome . I do wonder if similar farmers in European countries are wondering what they will be required to do in order to continue trading with their U.K. customers... A European supplier, who may have a considerable amount of their business with the U.K. must also be considering what the fallout will be, should there be new arrangements in place . Like the U.K. it’s not as if they will suddenly pull out of the hat a new customer that will plug the possible gap in their business. Would be interested in how this is being reported/discussed in mainland Europe ." It won’t be going down well in certain parts of the EU, but they will get the support and backing of their fellow EU members. Nobody gains from all this, but as I keep asking , why couldn’t Boris get a deal when he had all the advantages? It Mayes no sense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listened to a Scottish farmer talking about not knowing what paperwork will be required for him to continue with his European customers, in the event of a no deal outcome . I do wonder if similar farmers in European countries are wondering what they will be required to do in order to continue trading with their U.K. customers... A European supplier, who may have a considerable amount of their business with the U.K. must also be considering what the fallout will be, should there be new arrangements in place . Like the U.K. it’s not as if they will suddenly pull out of the hat a new customer that will plug the possible gap in their business. Would be interested in how this is being reported/discussed in mainland Europe ." I doubt the foreign farmers are anywhere near as concerned as the still benefit from CAP. Our government plan for agriculture will be concerning to say the least for a lot of farmers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? " No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.)" Boris promised a great deal, either he is a liar or incompetent or probably both | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.) Boris promised a great deal, either he is a liar or incompetent or probably both "both | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.) Boris promised a great deal, either he is a liar or incompetent or probably both both "I agree, he is an embarrassing shambles, completely out of his depth and has failed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.) Boris promised a great deal, either he is a liar or incompetent or probably both both
I agree, he is an embarrassing shambles, completely out of his depth and has failed "Seems like when you can’t win the argument, attack the man. I didn’t vote for him btw. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listened to a Scottish farmer talking about not knowing what paperwork will be required for him to continue with his European customers, in the event of a no deal outcome . I do wonder if similar farmers in European countries are wondering what they will be required to do in order to continue trading with their U.K. customers... A European supplier, who may have a considerable amount of their business with the U.K. must also be considering what the fallout will be, should there be new arrangements in place . Like the U.K. it’s not as if they will suddenly pull out of the hat a new customer that will plug the possible gap in their business. Would be interested in how this is being reported/discussed in mainland Europe ." Any sensible farmer or other type of supplier in the EU will have spent the last four years building up their sales in other parts of Europe. The farmer in Europe will encounter increased friction in their sales to one country, who nevertheless are quite dependent on purchasing his produce because they are unable to get it from any other nearby country. The producer in England will encounter increased friction in their sales to twenty seven other countries, who for most products are perfectly able to get them from other countries within their trading group. Certainly there will be some losers in Europe; however there are going to be a lot more losers in England. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.) Boris promised a great deal, either he is a liar or incompetent or probably both both
I agree, he is an embarrassing shambles, completely out of his depth and has failed
Seems like when you can’t win the argument, attack the man. I didn’t vote for him btw. "He is the ‘man’ in charge, he made the promises, he proclaimed we ‘held all the cards’ he failed . Now where are we up to with the no deal benefits Fish Hedges Blue passports | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listened to a Scottish farmer talking about not knowing what paperwork will be required for him to continue with his European customers, in the event of a no deal outcome . I do wonder if similar farmers in European countries are wondering what they will be required to do in order to continue trading with their U.K. customers... A European supplier, who may have a considerable amount of their business with the U.K. must also be considering what the fallout will be, should there be new arrangements in place . Like the U.K. it’s not as if they will suddenly pull out of the hat a new customer that will plug the possible gap in their business. Would be interested in how this is being reported/discussed in mainland Europe . Any sensible farmer or other type of supplier in the EU will have spent the last four years building up their sales in other parts of Europe. The farmer in Europe will encounter increased friction in their sales to one country, who nevertheless are quite dependent on purchasing his produce because they are unable to get it from any other nearby country. The producer in England will encounter increased friction in their sales to twenty seven other countries, who for most products are perfectly able to get them from other countries within their trading group. Certainly there will be some losers in Europe; however there are going to be a lot more losers in England." England you mean the U.K. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now where are we up to with the no deal benefits Fish Hedges Blue passports " I was looking on a pro-Brexit website and the only other one they have come up with is our government could vote to ban zero hours contracts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now where are we up to with the no deal benefits Fish Hedges Blue passports I was looking on a pro-Brexit website and the only other one they have come up with is our government could vote to ban zero hours contracts. " Wow, that’s 4 now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listened to a Scottish farmer talking about not knowing what paperwork will be required for him to continue with his European customers, in the event of a no deal outcome . I do wonder if similar farmers in European countries are wondering what they will be required to do in order to continue trading with their U.K. customers... A European supplier, who may have a considerable amount of their business with the U.K. must also be considering what the fallout will be, should there be new arrangements in place . Like the U.K. it’s not as if they will suddenly pull out of the hat a new customer that will plug the possible gap in their business. Would be interested in how this is being reported/discussed in mainland Europe . Any sensible farmer or other type of supplier in the EU will have spent the last four years building up their sales in other parts of Europe. The farmer in Europe will encounter increased friction in their sales to one country, who nevertheless are quite dependent on purchasing his produce because they are unable to get it from any other nearby country. The producer in England will encounter increased friction in their sales to twenty seven other countries, who for most products are perfectly able to get them from other countries within their trading group. Certainly there will be some losers in Europe; however there are going to be a lot more losers in England. England you mean the U.K. " Nope i mean England. Northern Ireland gets to stay in the EU (more or less). When it all goes to shit, Scotland will tell England to fuck off, then will be welcomed back into the EU just so that Macron and Merkel can fuck with bojo's head Two years after that, Wales and Cornwall will declare UDI from the UK and join the Celtic Union with Scotland and NI, sliding in to free trade deals with the EU countries under some kind of "preferred associate third party country" arrangement...
Leaving the United Kingdom of England and, er, England, as the only country in the western world attempting to run international trading under an "Australia type deal" (though tbh, by then Australia will probably have negotiated good trading terms with the EU, taking a big slice of the former commerce that England has thrown away). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wow, that’s 4 now " Yes but only the option to ban them so I think that is a total of 3.5 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now where are we up to with the no deal benefits Fish Hedges Blue passports I was looking on a pro-Brexit website and the only other one they have come up with is our government could vote to ban zero hours contracts. " Or could vote to make zero hours contracts compulsory for all... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can’t believe we still have negotiations still going on I would have pulled them back as soon as Boris came back this week. Let’s stop wasting anymore time and concentrate on the rest of the world "Imagine if we didn't have to waste time on negotiating with the EU or the rest of the world. Imagine if we already had favourable trade agreements, all negotiated for us as part of a large powerful trading block. That would be great. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.) Boris promised a great deal, either he is a liar or incompetent or probably both both
I agree, he is an embarrassing shambles, completely out of his depth and has failed
Seems like when you can’t win the argument, attack the man. I didn’t vote for him btw.
He is the ‘man’ in charge, he made the promises, he proclaimed we ‘held all the cards’ he failed . Now where are we up to with the no deal benefits
Fish
Hedges
Blue passports "So you’re ignoring my earlier answer of not paying in a net 9 billion a year. So you’ll ignore the banning of live animal exports as well. Making our own regulations where higher product standards are required. Bringing back the best elements of BSI, RVLR etc. What’s that you say? James O’Brien didn’t mention any of those? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can’t believe we still have negotiations still going on I would have pulled them back as soon as Boris came back this week. Let’s stop wasting anymore time and concentrate on the rest of the world
Imagine if we didn't have to waste time on negotiating with the EU or the rest of the world.
Imagine if we already had favourable trade agreements, all negotiated for us as part of a large powerful trading block.
That would be great."Yes just imagine being told sorry you cannot do that because of the level playing field ect ect ect. The level playing field always seems to slope away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
For that, read trade deals that just about meet the requirements of 28 diverse countries and economies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.) Boris promised a great deal, either he is a liar or incompetent or probably both both
I agree, he is an embarrassing shambles, completely out of his depth and has failed
Seems like when you can’t win the argument, attack the man. I didn’t vote for him btw.
He is the ‘man’ in charge, he made the promises, he proclaimed we ‘held all the cards’ he failed . Now where are we up to with the no deal benefits
Fish
Hedges
Blue passports
So you’re ignoring my earlier answer of not paying in a net 9 billion a year.
So you’ll ignore the banning of live animal exports as well.
Making our own regulations where higher product standards are required. Bringing back the best elements of BSI, RVLR etc.
What’s that you say? James O’Brien didn’t mention any of those? "Ah yes, my apologies . The £9 billion will come in handy, where do you think it should be spent and will it be on top of last years budget? Banning live animal exports is certainly a plus, does this apply to poultry? The UK farmers must be very pleased about this? I like the sound of higher product standards, where will this be applicable? What are the best elements of BSI & RVLR? Tbh I hadn’t realised just how beneficial a no deal would be,. I can’t understand why Boris and his cronies kept telling us that it would never happen was he just kidding with us all ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France "Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France "I wonder where he thinks his fishermen will be fishing from the 1st? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? "Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them. "Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
I wonder where he thinks his fishermen will be fishing from the 1st?"Blockading the ports mate thats what they are good at,everyones worrying about the new paperwork and lorry queues but nothing will be moving anyway as the fishermen will stop that. It will be interesting to see what the eu does about it, will they order macron to stop them or will they let them stop the flow of goods from the other 26 countries? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? "I would guess to talk to them . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them . "It is such a shame they ignored his call then, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them .
It is such a shame they ignored his call then, "so do you think this won’t hurt the eu then do you think they want a no deal ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them .
It is such a shame they ignored his call then, "That is funny to you how??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them .
It is such a shame they ignored his call then, so do you think this won’t hurt the eu then do you think they want a no deal ?"It honestly doesn’t matter now, we are leaving with a no deal, something that we were promised would never happen. You have to laugh mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them .
It is such a shame they ignored his call then, That is funny to you how???"Because Boris still thinks he ‘holds all the cards’ and ‘they need is more then we need them ‘ and they ignore his calls, you have to laugh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them .
It is such a shame they ignored his call then, so do you think this won’t hurt the eu then do you think they want a no deal ?
It honestly doesn’t matter now, we are leaving with a no deal, something that we were promised would never happen. You have to laugh mate "Right you have realized you were coming across very childish again. so what are they so frightened about be back after the rugby so plenty of time to think about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them .
It is such a shame they ignored his call then, so do you think this won’t hurt the eu then do you think they want a no deal ?
It honestly doesn’t matter now, we are leaving with a no deal, something that we were promised would never happen. You have to laugh mate Right you have realized you were coming across very childish again. so what are they so frightened about be back after the rugby so plenty of time to think about it."Frightened? Who is frightened? You need to lighten up, this is just a bit of banter, Brexit is comedy gold | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can’t believe we still have negotiations still going on I would have pulled them back as soon as Boris came back this week. Let’s stop wasting anymore time and concentrate on the rest of the world
Imagine if we didn't have to waste time on negotiating with the EU or the rest of the world.
Imagine if we already had favourable trade agreements, all negotiated for us as part of a large powerful trading block.
That would be great.
Yes just imagine being told sorry you cannot do that because of the level playing field ect ect ect.
The level playing field always seems to slope away "The Level playing field card is clearly bullshit, compared to other states int the EU we hardly use any state aid, The Conservatives are against state aid intrinsically and we have signed up to tighter state aid rules already as party of the Japan deal (the one that favours them 83% in exports) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them .
It is such a shame they ignored his call then, so do you think this won’t hurt the eu then do you think they want a no deal ?
It honestly doesn’t matter now, we are leaving with a no deal, something that we were promised would never happen. You have to laugh mate Right you have realized you were coming across very childish again. so what are they so frightened about be back after the rugby so plenty of time to think about it."Coming from a guy to insinuate I was attracted to Silverhorn earlier! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can’t believe we still have negotiations still going on I would have pulled them back as soon as Boris came back this week. Let’s stop wasting anymore time and concentrate on the rest of the world
Imagine if we didn't have to waste time on negotiating with the EU or the rest of the world.
Imagine if we already had favourable trade agreements, all negotiated for us as part of a large powerful trading block.
That would be great.
Yes just imagine being told sorry you cannot do that because of the level playing field ect ect ect.
The level playing field always seems to slope away
The Level playing field card is clearly bullshit, compared to other states int the EU we hardly use any state aid, The Conservatives are against state aid intrinsically and we have signed up to tighter state aid rules already as party of the Japan deal (the one that favours them 83% in exports)"Favours them 83% because we had to accommodate the requirements of 27 other nations. That will be improved from next year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I can’t really get my head around is the enthusiasm for WTO/Australia/No Deal trading, whereby let’s say anti-dumping disputes are settled by each side (for example, the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement provided for disputes to be arbitrated by a panel of three experts, one selected by each party and a chair) with any final appeal going to a WTO “Dispute Settlement Body”. But on the other hand, UK/EU trading disputes settled by each side nominating a pool of ten legal experts from which is chosen a panel to come to an agreement, with any final appeal going to the ECJ, is met with shock horror and “takes away our sovereignty”" The ecj is funded by the eu hardly impartial is it or hard to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I can’t really get my head around is the enthusiasm for WTO/Australia/No Deal trading, whereby let’s say anti-dumping disputes are settled by each side (for example, the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement provided for disputes to be arbitrated by a panel of three experts, one selected by each party and a chair) with any final appeal going to a WTO “Dispute Settlement Body”. But on the other hand, UK/EU trading disputes settled by each side nominating a pool of ten legal experts from which is chosen a panel to come to an agreement, with any final appeal going to the ECJ, is met with shock horror and “takes away our sovereignty”The ecj is funded by the eu hardly impartial is it or hard to understand. "I mean what amount of sovereignty are you willing to sacrifice? Or are we just going to stop dealing with everyone and have full sovereignty? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I can’t really get my head around is the enthusiasm for WTO/Australia/No Deal trading, whereby let’s say anti-dumping disputes are settled by each side (for example, the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement provided for disputes to be arbitrated by a panel of three experts, one selected by each party and a chair) with any final appeal going to a WTO “Dispute Settlement Body”. But on the other hand, UK/EU trading disputes settled by each side nominating a pool of ten legal experts from which is chosen a panel to come to an agreement, with any final appeal going to the ECJ, is met with shock horror and “takes away our sovereignty”The ecj is funded by the eu hardly impartial is it or hard to understand.
I mean what amount of sovereignty are you willing to sacrifice? Or are we just going to stop dealing with everyone and have full sovereignty?"Would you be happy to have your football team refereed by the oppositions manager ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The ecj is funded by the eu hardly impartial” By that logic, the Old Bailey which is funded by the same source as the CPS and Police, would never find anybody innocent!" How is that even the same ffs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The ecj is funded by the eu hardly impartial” By that logic, the Old Bailey which is funded by the same source as the CPS and Police, would never find anybody innocent!" Who funds the jury? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris should have walked away as soon as napoleon started on about vetoing and deals that were not so good for France
Why did Boris try and phone Macron today? Funny how its supposed to be the European union but only macron and merkel (sounds like a double act ) are the only ones to have a voice yet they are all equal.
If as a lot of posters on here think they dislike Boris and the uk so much why are they still trying to do a deal?
They have said themselves they are worried about having a G7 deregulated country on their doorstep and wont be able to compete.
That is from the eu ,so the way i see it they must think their rules are pretty crap if we are going to be major competition to them.
Let me ask again, why did Boris phone Macron & Merkel? I would guess to talk to them .
It is such a shame they ignored his call then, so do you think this won’t hurt the eu then do you think they want a no deal ?
It honestly doesn’t matter now, we are leaving with a no deal, something that we were promised would never happen. You have to laugh mate "we don’t know that until Sunday mate the ey have done last min deals before | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can’t believe we still have negotiations still going on I would have pulled them back as soon as Boris came back this week. Let’s stop wasting anymore time and concentrate on the rest of the world
Imagine if we didn't have to waste time on negotiating with the EU or the rest of the world.
Imagine if we already had favourable trade agreements, all negotiated for us as part of a large powerful trading block.
That would be great.
Yes just imagine being told sorry you cannot do that because of the level playing field ect ect ect.
The level playing field always seems to slope away "Good hustle. So now we're not even on the playing field. We're trying to buy a last minute ticket from a tout outside who knows were fucking desperate and is charging us through the nose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the rebuffed phone calls speak volumes to the U.K. that it’s time to stop talking to any of them and get on with dealing with the other countries around the world. Farmers on tv moaning about the tariffs on meat exports, they should be selling it here not abroad and maybe even start moving towards more sustainable farming away from animals. Went we all supposed to be moving away from meat ? " So your solution to turn brexit from a clusterfuck into a success is to buy more meat from British farmers and then eat less meat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no Brexiters able to say why Boris Johnson said No Deal would be a 'failure' if No Deal is actually good for Britain? No one, apart from a few fringe loonies, have ever suggested a no deal would be any good. The clear exception being those who profit from disaster Capitalism, (probably just a coincidence that these are the same people who campaigned for brexit for years and years.) Boris promised a great deal, either he is a liar or incompetent or probably both both
I agree, he is an embarrassing shambles, completely out of his depth and has failed
Seems like when you can’t win the argument, attack the man. I didn’t vote for him btw.
He is the ‘man’ in charge, he made the promises, he proclaimed we ‘held all the cards’ he failed . Now where are we up to with the no deal benefits
Fish
Hedges
Blue passports
So you’re ignoring my earlier answer of not paying in a net 9 billion a year.
So you’ll ignore the banning of live animal exports as well.
Making our own regulations where higher product standards are required. Bringing back the best elements of BSI, RVLR etc.
What’s that you say? James O’Brien didn’t mention any of those?
Ah yes, my apologies .
The £9 billion will come in handy, where do you think it should be spent and will it be on top of last years budget?
Banning live animal exports is certainly a plus, does this apply to poultry? The UK farmers must be very pleased about this?
I like the sound of higher product standards, where will this be applicable?
What are the best elements of BSI & RVLR?
Tbh I hadn’t realised just how beneficial a no deal would be,. I can’t understand why Boris and his cronies kept telling us that it would never happen was he just kidding with us all ?
"Seeing as a lot of remoaners are now choosing to ignore the benefits that the OP asked about 1) The 9 billion needs to go towards the 3 trillion in public sector debt we now have (the real figure when you included unfunded public sector pensions) 2) All sentient creatures (so not remoaners) will be happy, yes 3) In my own industry the older BSI standards were far superior to the European ones, looking forward to getting those back and reinvigorating our exports to countries that want better products | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexitology.... The Brexit endgame is very close to what Brexiters described as “Project Fear” How is it then that Brexiters remain loyal to the cause when the end result is exactly what they argued would never happen? I accept that there was no absolute Remain argument as there was no absolute Brexit argument, but the position today is far closer to what most Remainers said would be the case than the position that Brexiters said we would be in." A. Brexit is amazing. What are you talking about. (The head in the sand approach). B. It's remainers fault (the people who voted against this mess, are to blame for this mess). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
