The result of the EU referendum:

[L.A.]

Its outrageous to make any claim about what a countries GDP would be in 14 years time, you would more accurate rolling a dice. Again, even if you rely on this, the country is still 31% richer than it is now. The report also assumes immigration remains at high  levels.

So lets look at this £4,300 per household nonsense, this is GDP divided by number of households, which today is £60,000 ish, yet average income today is c. £40,000, so its already at least 50% inflated. The number of predicted households is flawed (immigration figures wrong) and your £4,300 is quite likely to turn into nothing.

Also don't forget the £4,300 is not less then what you have now, the report which you rely on predicts if we leave we'll be richer in 14 years time.

Things would have to be fairly disastrous if our economy didn't grow at all in 14 years, but the model predicts that we would do better if we were inside the EU.

There is a an area from Iceland to Turkey in which there are no tariffs, the phrase 'free trade zone' seems accurate description of that area.

Gove talks of this Free Trade area encompassing all this area, even to the borders of Russia with " full access to the European market but we would be free from EU regulation."

It would be a good trick if he could pull it off but the plan is a bit short on detail.

Breaking a free trade deal is an option for all countries.

Yes, but the big ones can get away with it.

[Jack Knave]

You must be referring to Gove's Fantasy Land where we are magically given all the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs. That's not going to happen!

Either we will not get free access to the market or we will have to pay a significant financial cost

Why? If they penalise us they get penalised as we won't buy so much of their goods and some German and French firms won't like that.

There are certainly plenty of people outside the EU who would be very keen to work in the UK, but I'm not sure that most people in this country would regards a flood of immigrants from none EU countries to be an improvement on our current arrangements.

What makes you think it would be a flood? That's just stupid, we would be in control, something we don't have now.

[jakswan]

Things would have to be fairly disastrous if our economy didn't grow at all in 14 years, but the model predicts that we would do better if we were inside the EU.

The worst case scenario is that the UK economy would grow by 31% over 14 years if it left the UK.

Gove talks of this Free Trade area encompassing all this area, even to the borders of Russia with " full access to the European market but we would be free from EU regulation."

It would be a good trick if he could pull it off but the plan is a bit short on detail.

Turkey is not bound by the laws of the EU, no tricks required.

Yes, but the big ones can get away with it.

So you want us to remain in the Eu in order that we can be big enough to break trade agreements?

[Hope]

The worst case scenario is that the UK economy would grow by 31% over 14 years if it left the UK.

Citation required

Turkey is not bound by the laws of the EU, no tricks required.

So why do they want to join the union?

[Hope]

Anm interesting breakdown of the apparent £252 a year for every person in the country that we contibute to the EU.

Yes, this is the case, but when rebates (equivalent to £76/person), repayments (87)and all Institute for Fiscal Studies adjustments (£29), each of us pays £60 a year to the EU.  This indicates that the population of the UK is about 74.6 million (The current population of the United Kingdom is 65,032,197 as of Tuesday, April 19, 2016, based on the latest United Nations estimates. www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/)

OK, you can argue that is a sizeable sum of money, even if the maths is somewhat rusty, but is there not a case for providing the less-well off with some of our wealth?

[jakswan]

Citation required

The report produced by Osborne says we'll be 31% better off in 2030 but argues 39% better off if we stay.

So why do they want to join the union?

No idea.

[Jack Knave]

It may be an imperfect process, but the Treasury do spend quite a lot of time and money developing computer models of our economy. If the BREXITors disagree with the predictions, it would be useful if they explained exactly why they are dismissing results that politicians in normal circumstances would take very seriously.

They couldn't predict our situation 3 months in advance, what chance have they of doing it for 14 years!!!

[L.A.]

They couldn't predict our situation 3 months in advance, what chance have they of doing it for 14 years!!!

Morning jack,

If you are trying to start up a business venture of some kind, you will need to present a 'Business Plan'  to your backers. Everyone knows that it will be imperfect, but it at least demonstrates that you have thought things out and have considered the risks.

From what they tell us the BREXIT brigade's 'Business Plan' appears to be to fantasise about a Europe wide free trade zone and hope that the rest of the world offer us really generous trade deals.

Your right, the Treasury forecasts won't be spot-on, but they are a million time better than Goves day-dreams.

[Hope]

They couldn't predict our situation 3 months in advance, what chance have they of doing it for 14 years!!!

Jack, have the Leave campaign produced any properly costed predictions for the first few years of the UK being outside of the EU?  If so, perhaps you can direct us to them.

On a different issue, I can sort of understand the concerns about Obama wading into the debate - after all, there is the TTIP process though which the US want to have a far greater influence on and in European policies and practices.  The very fact that this agreement between the US and the EU remains largely secret as far as its details are concerned worries me, since if something is being negotiated 'on my behalf' I'd like to know what its all about before it is finally agreed.

http://ind.pn/1vKDnyU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

(I'd probably trust the former slightly over the latter)

[jakswan]

Your right, the Treasury forecasts won't be spot-on, but they are a million time better than Goves day-dreams.

6.2% is not a 'million times'. #projectfear in full flow this morning.

[jeremyp]

Anm interesting breakdown of the apparent £252 a year for every person in the country that we contibute to the EU.

Yes, this is the case, but when rebates (equivalent to £76/person), repayments (87)and all Institute for Fiscal Studies adjustments (£29), each of us pays £60 a year to the EU.  This indicates that the population of the UK is about 74.6 million (The current population of the United Kingdom is 65,032,197 as of Tuesday, April 19, 2016, based on the latest United Nations estimates. www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/)

OK, you can argue that is a sizeable sum of money, even if the maths is somewhat rusty, but is there not a case for providing the less-well off with some of our wealth?

Yes of course there is. We do it almost without thinking about it in the UK. Money flows from the rich parts of the country to the poor parts of the country pretty much automatically. If London made a successful bid for independence, everywhere else would be stuffed.

The UK is a net contributor to the EU because it is rich. That the rich should help the poor is a guiding principle of a healthy society.

[L.A.]

6.2% is not a 'million times'. #projectfear in full flow this morning.

Can you offer a clearer explanation of what the BREXITors plans would be if they won the vote?

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you offer a clearer explanation of what the BREXITors plans would be if they won the vote?

The problem is that they don't agree either. They can't say what post Brexit looks like because:

1. Gove disagrees fundamentally with Farage - Johnson's only concern is that Brexit equals Johnson PM etc etc.

2. Many of the key decisions that will shape what post Brexit looks like aren't under the control of the Brexiter or the UK, but (irony of ironies) the EU - because it is the remaining EU members, not the UK who will have the deciding say on what the relationship between an exited UK and the rest of the EU look like.

3. They aren't actually interested in detail, partly because they know that as soon as anyone credible looks at the economic forecast it isn't pretty reading, and partly because the hard-line Brexiters, who are running the campaign, see exist as the be all and end all - simply being out of the EU is enough for them, whatever the consequences on jobs, economy etc.

In most, but not all respects, this is the same as the Pro-Indy campaigners in the Indy-ref but even worse. At least largely they agreed on point 1 (albeit much of what they wanted wasn't in their control - see point 2). Also, although it was most likely that independence would be negative economically expert opinion was more balanced - so that with a following wind (i.e. oil prices remaining massively high) Scotland could have been better off - the issue was risk and lack of economic diversity and as we've seen the best case scenario has crumbled to dust on oil. By contrast there is no credible economic opinion that indicates that leaving the EU, in itself, would be anything other that economically damaging.

In fact the only report that suggests any kind of boost (when isn't specified) is (I think) from Open Europe, who aren't really a credible economic organisation, more a campaign group and they only suggest a tiny boost (0.7%), but critically this isn't actually due to leaving the EU, but due to their dogmatic desire for free market right wing deregulation policies that would make Thatcher look hard left wing - sort of Redwood plus. But that isn't going to happen even if we left the EU, because in order for it to happen we'd also need to elect (and continue to retain in power) a hard economic right wrong government more extreme than we've ever seen - it won't happen.

And actually leaving the EU isn't even a prerequisite for this theoretical (but never going to happen) possibility. If the EU member states also voted hard right economic governments this could happen EU wide. Indeed that is the only actual way their pipe dream could happen, because if the UK left, even if it had the requisite uber-right wing government, its ability to trade with the EU would be limited by the views of the remaining EU countries who will undoubtedly require adherence to certain fundamental levels of economic regulation as a prerequisite for free trade.

[~TW~]

The problem is that they don't agree either. They can't say what post Brexit looks like because:

1. Gove disagrees fundamentally with Farage - Johnson's only concern is that Brexit equals Johnson PM etc etc.

2. Many of the key decisions that will shape what post Brexit looks like aren't under the control of the Brexiter or the UK, but (irony of ironies) the EU - because it is the remaining EU members, not the UK who will have the deciding say on what the relationship between an exited UK and the rest of the EU look like.

3. They aren't actually interested in detail, partly because they know that as soon as anyone credible looks at the economic forecast it isn't pretty reading, and partly because the hard-line Brexiters, who are running the campaign, see exist as the be all and end all - simply being out of the EU is enough for them, whatever the consequences on jobs, economy etc.

In most, but not all respects, this is the same as the Pro-Indy campaigners in the Indy-ref but even worse. At least largely they agreed on point 1 (albeit much of what they wanted wasn't in their control - see point 2). Also, although it was most likely that independence would be negative economically expert opinion was more balanced - so that with a following wind (i.e. oil prices remaining massively high) Scotland could have been better off - the issue was risk and lack of economic diversity and as we've seen the best case scenario has crumbled to dust on oil. By contrast there is no credible economic opinion that indicates that leaving the EU, in itself, would be anything other that economically damaging.

In fact the only report that suggests any kind of boost (when isn't specified) is (I think) from Open Europe, who aren't really a credible economic organisation, more a campaign group and they only suggest a tiny boost (0.7%), but critically this isn't actually due to leaving the EU, but due to their dogmatic desire for free market right wing deregulation policies that would make Thatcher look hard left wing - sort of Redwood plus. But that isn't going to happen even if we left the EU, because in order for it to happen we'd also need to elect (and continue to retain in power) a hard economic right wrong government more extreme than we've ever seen - it won't happen.

And actually leaving the EU isn't even a prerequisite for this theoretical (but never going to happen) possibility. If the EU member states also voted hard right economic governments this could happen EU wide. Indeed that is the only actual way their pipe dream could happen, because if the UK left, even if it had the requisite uber-right wing government, its ability to trade with the EU would be limited by the views of the remaining EU countries who will undoubtedly require adherence to certain fundamental levels of economic regulation as a prerequisite for free trade.

 This crystal ball reading did you get it from newnature.

               ~TW~

[ProfessorDavey]

This crystal ball reading did you get it from newnature.

               ~TW~

Ecomonic experts from internationally credible organisations making predictive models of economic performance in the future based an credible assumptions and tried and tested methodologies isn't crystal ball gazing, it is sessile planning. And when all the organisations and their models tell the same story it is extremely unlikely they are all wrong.

All the Brexiters do is go 'you're wrong' to the IMF, 'you're wrong' to the OECD, 'you're wrong' to the G7, 'you're wrong' to the Treasury, 'you're wrong' to the OBR, 'you're wrong' to the Bank of England, 'you're wrong' to the world bank etc etc, without having a shred of credibility in making predictions themselves and frankly not providing any evidence whatsoever to sustain a claim that we will be OK economically.

Their approach is effectively, 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening, they're all wrong - guess what it will be great, cos I say so'.

Laughable and increasingly the public are seeing through it. If you want the public to vote for the biggest change we will have seen in decades you have to provide a clear vision of what that future will be like (none is forthcoming) and credible evidence on the effect of that change on our jobs, wages, livelihood, public services etc etc - which is completely absent.

[jakswan]

The problem is that they don't agree either. They can't say what post Brexit looks like because:

We can agree that we'd be £250 million a week better off, EU will not have a hand in directing our laws, more independent, more control over immigration, etc.

1. Gove disagrees fundamentally with Farage - Johnson's only concern is that Brexit equals Johnson PM etc etc.

Applies to both sides, as you would expect, Corbyn disagrees with Cameron, e.g. vision of a socialist EU.

2. Many of the key decisions that will shape what post Brexit looks like aren't under the control of the Brexiter or the UK, but (irony of ironies) the EU - because it is the remaining EU members, not the UK who will have the deciding say on what the relationship between an exited UK and the rest of the EU look like.

Nonsense a relationship is a two way thing. You might be scared of the big EU not everyone feels the UK will be bullied into utter subservience.

3. They aren't actually interested in detail, partly because they know that as soon as anyone credible looks at the economic forecast it isn't pretty reading, and partly because the hard-line Brexiters, who are running the campaign, see exist as the be all and end all - simply being out of the EU is enough for them, whatever the consequences on jobs, economy etc.

31% growth by 2030 is pretty reading.

In most, but not all respects, this is the same as the Pro-Indy campaigners in the Indy-ref but even worse. At least largely they agreed on point 1 (albeit much of what they wanted wasn't in their control - see point 2). Also, although it was most likely that independence would be negative economically expert opinion was more balanced - so that with a following wind (i.e. oil prices remaining massively high) Scotland could have been better off - the issue was risk and lack of economic diversity and as we've seen the best case scenario has crumbled to dust on oil. By contrast there is no credible economic opinion that indicates that leaving the EU, in itself, would be anything other that economically damaging.

31% growth by 2030.

[/quote]
In fact the only report that suggests any kind of boost (when isn't specified) is (I think) from Open Europe, who aren't really a credible economic organisation, more a campaign group and they only suggest a tiny boost (0.7%), but critically this isn't actually due to leaving the EU, but due to their dogmatic desire for free market right wing deregulation policies that would make Thatcher look hard left wing - sort of Redwood plus. But that isn't going to happen even if we left the EU, because in order for it to happen we'd also need to elect (and continue to retain in power) a hard economic right wrong government more extreme than we've ever seen - it won't happen.[/quote]

31% growth by 2030.

And actually leaving the EU isn't even a prerequisite for this theoretical (but never going to happen) possibility. If the EU member states also voted hard right economic governments this could happen EU wide. Indeed that is the only actual way their pipe dream could happen, because if the UK left, even if it had the requisite uber-right wing government, its ability to trade with the EU would be limited by the views of the remaining EU countries who will undoubtedly require adherence to certain fundamental levels of economic regulation as a prerequisite for free trade.

What economic regulation?

[jakswan]

Can you offer a clearer explanation of what the BREXITors plans would be if they won the vote?

I'll use your tactics, it will be a million times better.

[jakswan]

Ecomonic experts from internationally credible organisations making predictive models of economic performance in the future based an credible assumptions and tried and tested methodologies isn't crystal ball gazing, it is sessile planning. And when all the organisations and their models tell the same story it is extremely unlikely they are all wrong.

All the Brexiters do is go 'you're wrong' to the IMF, 'you're wrong' to the OECD, 'you're wrong' to the G7, 'you're wrong' to the Treasury, 'you're wrong' to the OBR, 'you're wrong' to the Bank of England, 'you're wrong' to the world bank etc etc, without having a shred of credibility in making predictions themselves and frankly not providing any evidence whatsoever to sustain a claim that we will be OK economically.

Their approach is effectively, 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening, they're all wrong - guess what it will be great, cos I say so'.

Another series of strawmen, its ridiculous to claim what would happen in 2030 but since you value that sort of analysis you are bound by it, so you have to accept that  UK will be 31% better off than it is now by 2030.

Laughable and increasingly the public are seeing through it. If you want the public to vote for the biggest change we will have seen in decades you have to provide a clear vision of what that future will be like (none is forthcoming) and credible evidence on the effect of that change on our jobs, wages, livelihood, public services etc etc - which is completely absent.

Its very close, far closer than your hysterical rants suggest.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

[~TW~]

Ecomonic experts from internationally credible organisations making predictive models of economic performance in the future based an credible assumptions and tried and tested methodologies isn't crystal ball gazing, it is sessile planning. And when all the organisations and their models tell the same story it is extremely unlikely they are all wrong.

All the Brexiters do is go 'you're wrong' to the IMF, 'you're wrong' to the OECD, 'you're wrong' to the G7, 'you're wrong' to the Treasury, 'you're wrong' to the OBR, 'you're wrong' to the Bank of England, 'you're wrong' to the world bank etc etc, without having a shred of credibility in making predictions themselves and frankly not providing any evidence whatsoever to sustain a claim that we will be OK economically.

Their approach is effectively, 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening, they're all wrong - guess what it will be great, cos I say so'.

Laughable and increasingly the public are seeing through it. If you want the public to vote for the biggest change we will have seen in decades you have to provide a clear vision of what that future will be like (none is forthcoming) and credible evidence on the effect of that change on our jobs, wages, livelihood, public services etc etc - which is completely absent.

 So you still read The Dandy 

           ~TW~

[ProfessorDavey]

We can agree that we'd be £250 million a week better off

No we can't - whether or not we are better off is a product of the effect of net contribution to the EU (which when all grants etc received is less than £250M) adjusted for the difference in economic performance that leaving the EU would make compared with remaining.

Even using your inflated £250M per week (or £13billion per year) and given that our GDP is about £2,000 billion, that £13 billion 'saving' would be completely wiped out with just a 0.6% drop in GDP for the leave situation compared to the remain. That is below even the most optimistic expectations (and I'm not talking 2030 estimates, but short range). The mid level is about 3% drop in GDP, which would mean that we would be about £47billion a year worse off, or £900million a week if you prefer.

The costs associated with being a member of the EU are an investment, you cannot simply state the cost and not the return.

So are you prepared to be £900million a week worse off? Sounds like a lot, but thats what the analysis suggests.

[ProfessorDavey]

EU will not have a hand in directing our laws

Yes they will if we want free trade.

more independent

Hmm, what like Norway - has to abide with pretty well all EU regulation, yet has no say - doesn't sound like independence to me - sounds like a mugs game.

more control over immigration, etc.

I'm perfectly happy with our current position thanks very much. I don't want yet more home grown red tap thrown at employers (and yup most is very much home grown). So an example, a real one. Earlier this week I interviewed a couple of candidates for a research position. From about 30 applicants we interviewed the two standout candidates. One is Irish, currently living in London, the other German, did her PhD in London, currently working in Paris. We chose the latter, but the good news of course is that we could appoint either red-tape free. Unless you want a continuation of free movement of labour, in which case there would be no change in the immigration state, then presumably I would have to wrestle with red tape, jump through hoops, have to get involved in additional and unnecessary bureaucracy to have to employ either of these non-UK, but EU nationals. Frankly I don't want to do that - I think it is great that I can employ the best person for the job.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nonsense a relationship is a two way thing. You might be scared of the big EU not everyone feels the UK will be bullied into utter subservience.

You are using exactly the same kind of fantasy argument that the indy-Ref nats used on membership of the EU. Like you they claimed that they would automatically be allowed entry, just cos they wanted it. That is fantasy as is your view.

Without an agreement the default will be (after 2 years) that UK-EU trade will be subject to standard tariffs. Indeed to do otherwise would likely be challenged in international law as the UK would be being given special treatment which would fall could of competitiveness rules.

And there can only be an agreement if both sides agree. One side cannot unilaterally impose an agreement on the other. So what this means is that the UK can veto an agreement, as can the EU but the UK cannot force an agreement on the UK. So there will only be an agreement if (and when) not only the UK wants it but all remaining 27 members of the EU agree. And the key point is that the consequences of not getting an agreement on the remaining EU countries is massively less significant than it is for the UK.

So you are, of course, correct that if the UK feels it is being bullied into a deal it doesn't like it can refuse to sign and continue to be hit with the standard trading tariffs. Doesn't sound quite as rosy when you work in the world of reality rather than fantasy as you clearly do.

[ProfessorDavey]

Applies to both sides, as you would expect, Corbyn disagrees with Cameron, e.g. vision of a socialist EU.

No it doesn't - if remain wins we will have the same situation as now - ie. the status quo. If Corbyn wants something different then he can make that case at a general election and the electorate can then decide whether they prefer Corbyn's or Cameron's (or his successor's) view - but the future is clear with 'remain'.

That isn't the case with 'leave' - there will be no status quo - we don't know what the future looks like, so it is essential that the 'leave' brigade are clear about what voting 'leave' means - is it a Norway style deal, is it isolationist little Englander, is it (even) a stick to drive a better renegotiate to then actually remain. Remember key 'leave' campaigners have suggested all of these.

One of the things the Brexiters often trot out is 'well we voted in 1975 to be in a common market, we didn't vote for this' - OK fair enough, but following the 1975 vote they got exactly what they voted for, there has been an evolution of the EU over the subsequent 41 years. But no-one has a clue what the future looks like if we vote for 'leave' - we are being asked to vote completely blind. That is 100 times worse than the situation with the 1975 vote which Brexiters complain about - that's rank hypocrisy.

Why are you so scared - let's have the official line on what a post-exit UK would be like in terms of its relationships with the remaining EU etc etc. But you won't do, because you can't.

[jakswan]

Yes they will if we want free trade.
Hmm, what like Norway - has to abide with pretty well all EU regulation, yet has no say - doesn't sound like independence to me - sounds like a mugs game.

if you export to any country your p[roducts have to comply with the regulations of that country. The law that applies in Norway is decided by Norway not EU bureaucrats.

I'm perfectly happy with our current position thanks very much. I don't want yet more home grown red tap thrown at employers (and yup most is very much home grown). So an example, a real one. Earlier this week I interviewed a couple of candidates for a research position. From about 30 applicants we interviewed the two standout candidates. One is Irish, currently living in London, the other German, did her PhD in London, currently working in Paris. We chose the latter, but the good news of course is that we could appoint either red-tape free. Unless you want a continuation of free movement of labour, in which case there would be no change in the immigration state, then presumably I would have to wrestle with red tape, jump through hoops, have to get involved in additional and unnecessary bureaucracy to have to employ either of these non-UK, but EU nationals. Frankly I don't want to do that - I think it is great that I can employ the best person for the job.

Rather discriminating to anyone from India, US, Australia, etc that could have applied.

[jakswan]

You are using exactly the same kind of fantasy argument that the indy-Ref nats used on membership of the EU. Like you they claimed that they would automatically be allowed entry, just cos they wanted it. That is fantasy as is your view.

No I'm claiming a relationship is a two way thing no dictated by one side.

Without an agreement the default will be (after 2 years) that UK-EU trade will be subject to standard tariffs. Indeed to do otherwise would likely be challenged in international law as the UK would be being given special treatment which would fall could of competitiveness rules.

Unless we sign a free trade agreement which is likely given how big a customer we are of the EU.

And there can only be an agreement if both sides agree. One side cannot unilaterally impose an agreement on the other. So what this means is that the UK can veto an agreement, as can the EU but the UK cannot force an agreement on the UK. So there will only be an agreement if (and when) not only the UK wants it but all remaining 27 members of the EU agree. And the key point is that the consequences of not getting an agreement on the remaining EU countries is massively less significant than it is for the UK.

Given we import more than we export you could argue this the other way, a free trade agreement is mutually beneficial to EU and the new free independent UK.

So you are, of course, correct that if the UK feels it is being bullied into a deal it doesn't like it can refuse to sign and continue to be hit with the standard trading tariffs. Doesn't sound quite as rosy when you work in the world of reality rather than fantasy as you clearly do.

Sigh grow up.