The result of the EU referendum:

[ProfessorDavey]

I also like the suggestion that Boris was attempting to enlist the spirit of Churchill to his cuase, that statesman who was very keen on a united European economic area, if not politically united.

He really has lost it with his deeply offensive and totally ludicrous comments comparing the EU to Hitler.

[Nearly Sane]

He really has lost it with his deeply offensive and totally ludicrous comments comparing the EU to Hitler.

I look forward to his suspension from the party

[jakswan]

It isn't a lie - being part of the EU is worth approximately £900million a week to our economy - were we to leave our economy would lose that amount of GDP.

Evidence?

Nope £900 million worse off every single week through no longer being part of the EU. Just think of all the things that £900 million each week pays for - think of the lost jobs, the lost tax, reduced wages, the massive cuts in public services needed to make up for the shortfall in tax and addition unemployment costs.

Well it seems to be a figure you just made up.

Wake up, smell the coffee Jaks - all reputable and independent economic organisations agree that the effect of leaving the EU would be very very bad from an economic perspective. Sure they aren't quite certain whether it would be pretty bad, very bad, massively bad or catastrophic. But the fact remains that it will be bad - there won't be £350 million a week more to spend their will be £900 million a week less.

The government report you cited stated in the middle case scenario the economy would grow regardless, it claimed the economy would not grow as fast if the UK left. Whereas we would not be sending £250 million a week to the EU.

Wake up, smell the coffee Prof, just think of all the things that £250 million each week pays for - think of the increased jobs, the increased tax, higher wages, the massive increases in public services.

[jakswan]

So, you're not interested in the future of those people who do ordinary jobs - and just happen to them for politicians.  Doesn't surprise me.  More importantly, at east you accept that there will be job losses, which you didn't seem to accept in the post i responded to.

Stop making shit up, I don't care if a few politicians lose their jobs, no.

[jakswan]

I look forward to his suspension from the party

No way comparable to "liar Livingston".

[Nearly Sane]

No way comparable to "liar Livingston".

Why? It's using an arguable fact to create a dishonest implication?

[ProfessorDavey]

Evidence?

IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc

Well it seems to be a figure you just made up.

Nope a number derived from the expert opinions of the world's most respected independent economic organisations - e.g. IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc

The government report you cited stated in the middle case scenario the economy would grow regardless, it claimed the economy would not grow as fast if the UK left. Whereas we would not be sending £250 million a week to the EU.

I am using the middle case scenarios and I am also taking account of the net EU contribution - and the conclusion is that we will be about £900 million a week worse off if we leave the EU than if we stay.

Wake up, smell the coffee Prof, just think of all the things that £250 million each week pays for - think of the increased jobs, the increased tax, higher wages, the massive increases in public services.

We won't have a penny extra to pay for any of these things due to the economic hit - we will have about £900 million less per week in the economy to provide jobs, taxes and related public services if we leave than if we stay.

And this comes from the expert opinions of the world's most respected independent economic organisations - e.g. IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc.

I think we are still waiting for you to provide any credible and independent economic organisation that predicts that we will be better off if we leave rather than stay - why, because all the credible independent economic organisations have already given their views and they are unanimous - we will be considerably worse off if we leave compared to if we stay.

[jakswan]

Why? It's using an arguable fact to create a dishonest implication?

I agree its daft to bring it up, undermines his point i.e. that others have tried to unify Europe and it hasn't gone well. Livingston defending a Labour MP who suggested all Jews should be moved to the US brought up Hitler, actual quote.

It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.

If you can't understand the difference I don't know how to further explain it.

[jakswan]

IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc
Nope a number derived from the expert opinions of the world's most respected independent economic organisations - e.g. IMF, IFS, Treasury, Bank of England, OECD, World Bank, G7, LSE etc etc
I am using the middle case scenarios and I am also taking account of the net EU contribution - and the conclusion is that we will be about £900 million a week worse off if we leave the EU than if we stay.

Where exactly, the treasury report which is one I've looked at quite a few times doesn't say that.

I'll paraphrase, Treasury Report central  claim 'if we leave the economy will continue to grow but would grow faster if we remain', now the difference might be £900million in GDP terms by 2030, this is an opportunity cost.

To take this figure and claim that £900 million will come out of the economy day one is quite simply a lie.

I'll concede the £350 million doesn't include a rebate and money spent in the UK however even then we're are still talking about binge better off to the tune £100million a week plus!

I think we are still waiting for you to provide any credible and independent economic organisation that predicts that we will be better off if we leave rather than stay - why, because all the credible independent economic organisations have already given their views and they are unanimous - we will be considerably worse off if we leave compared to if we stay.

I don't need to I've told you countless times your own report that you consider valid (Treasury) claims that the economy will continue to grow if we leave, plus we'll have £100million extra to spend.

Please remember I don't think its valid, predicting GDP to 2030 is ridiculous.

[Aruntraveller]

For those of you who think Boris is a somewhat benevolent cuddly chappie. Here are a few quotes:

"Right, let's go and look at some more piccaninnies"

"Barack Obama is "part-Kenyan" and has an ancestral hatred of Britain."

"Tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles"

A small selection from his oeuvre.

Now I await in vain, his being expelled from the Tory party - does anyone here think that if Ken Livingstone had said those remarks he would have stood any chance of gettting away with it?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Trent,

Expel our next Prime Minister I suppose I am lucky, I can always vote SNP, walk away and leave you lovely English folk to your doom

Gonnagle.

PS: No wait, I can't leave, our Glorious Leader in number 10 tells me we are all in it together, so I will stay and wringe my hankie along with British Brothers.

[Aruntraveller]

Dear Trent,

Expel our next Prime Minister I suppose I am lucky, I can always vote SNP, walk away and leave you lovely English folk to your doom

Gonnagle.

PS: No wait, I can't leave, our Glorious Leader in number 10 tells me we are all in it together, so I will stay and wringe my hankie along with British Brothers.

You are indeed lucky. I'm thinking of emigrating to Glasgow. You've been warned.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Trent,

You are indeed lucky. I'm thinking of emigrating to Glasgow. You've been warned.

Come one come all!! Mother Glasgow welcomes all, well unless you are from Edinbugger, they need a permit and told to leave their furryboots at home

Gonnagle.

[Jack Knave]

Speaking of unemployment, housing and pressure on infrastructure caused by European migrants, which seems to have prompted Brexit, I was watching a programme about Jordan's reaction to a sudden influx of over 600,000 Syrian refugees - about 13% of their population. Jordan has a 31% unemployment rate.

Apparently the refugees are accessing the healthcare system  in Jordan and because of the huge influx of children some schools are operating a double-shift system - Jordanian children go to school in the morning and Syrian children go to school in the afternoon, because of differences in cultural values, customs and norms.

Makes Brexit look like a bit of an over-reaction IMO.

The real issue of Brexit is democracy and self rule. Immigration just highlights this main issue. The EAW also does.

[Jack Knave]

No job losses Farage won't be in government the £350 million a week could be spent on many worthy causes.

In fact if Brexit weakens the £pound then exports should increase, improving our Current Account.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where exactly, the treasury report which is one I've looked at quite a few times doesn't say that.

I'll paraphrase, Treasury Report central  claim 'if we leave the economy will continue to grow but would grow faster if we remain', now the difference might be £900million in GDP terms by 2030, this is an opportunity cost.

Actually the treasury long range figures indicate that we would be £2.3 billion a week worse off if we leave than if we stay.

To take this figure and claim that £900 million will come out of the economy day one is quite simply a lie.

I never actually said that, but it is completely consistent with the economy losing a couple of % in GDP under Brexit conditions rather than remaining.

I'll concede the £350 million doesn't include a rebate and money spent in the UK however even then we're are still talking about binge better off to the tune £100million a week plus!

I don't need to I've told you countless times your own report that you consider valid (Treasury) claims that the economy will continue to grow if we leave, plus we'll have £100million extra to spend.

Please remember I don't think its valid, predicting GDP to 2030 is ridiculous.

Your claimed £100 million represents just 0.26% of our GDP so if our economy shrinks by that much or fails to grow by that much in a Brexit scenario compared to remain then we are worse off. And all the credible economic forecasts suggest the hit will be considerably more than 0.26%. Indeed the CBI have cut their growth forecasts by 0.3% just on the uncertainty at the moment around the possibility of Brexit, and that's assuming that in the end we remain. The uncertainty is already hurting us, an actually vote for brexit will hit us really hard - we will be worse off and you claimed £100 million will be dwarfed by loss of GDP in a Brexit situation compared to remain.

[jakswan]

Actually the treasury long range figures indicate that we would be £2.3 billion a week worse off if we leave than if we stay.

So where is this £900 million coming from, what report, a link?

I never actually said that, but it is completely consistent with the economy losing a couple of % in GDP under Brexit conditions rather than remaining.

You said "£900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU", you lied, just admit it.

Your claimed £100 million represents just 0.26% of our GDP so if our economy shrinks by that much or fails to grow by that much in a Brexit scenario compared to remain then we are worse off.

Good grief this is very basic economics, government funds are not the same as GDP. So if the UK government built a new hospital every month and that costs £400 million, which we'd save from funding the EU, the effect on GDP wouldn't be anything like as small as £400 million.

And all the credible economic forecasts suggest the hit will be considerably more than 0.26%. Indeed the CBI have cut their growth forecasts by 0.3% just on the uncertainty at the moment around the possibility of Brexit, and that's assuming that in the end we remain. The uncertainty is already hurting us, an actually vote for brexit will hit us really hard - we will be worse off and you claimed £100 million will be dwarfed by loss of GDP in a Brexit situation compared to remain.

When you understand the difference between GDP and government funds it might be worth listening to your analysis.

Answer a simple yes/no question, does the treasury forecast predict that the UK will be richer (higher GDP) if we leave?

[ProfessorDavey]

So where is this £900 million coming from, what report, a link?

You said "£900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU", you lied, just admit it.

Have you read the treasury report? I doubt it.

I happen to be looking at it right now, and their modelling inputs a range of independent predictions of the early effect of Brexit (over the first 5 years) - you will find it on page 135. They range from about -0.75% to -4% as loss of GDP per year. So to take a middle level of approx 2-2.5% that is a loss to GDP of approx. £45-50 billion annually or around £900 million a week.

Good grief this is very basic economics, government funds are not the same as GDP. So if the UK government built a new hospital every month and that costs £400 million, which we'd save from funding the EU, the effect on GDP wouldn't be anything like as small as £400 million.

When you understand the difference between GDP and government funds it might be worth listening to your analysis.

Of course I do, but the two are inextricably related - where do you think our public expenditure comes from - it comes from everything we earn as a country, i.e. GDP. If the economy shrinks or grows less then tax take goes down, and the demands on that taxation in terms of benefits etc go up as unemployment increases. So actually the proportional effect on the public purse tends to be greater than the actual GDP loss.

Answer a simple yes/no question, does the treasury forecast predict that the UK will be richer (higher GDP) if we leave?

We will be better off if we stay than if we leave - that is what every credible independent economic organisation predicts, both in the short term and in the long term. That of course is the only relevant question - a comparison between the scenarios if we leave compared to if we stay.

[jakswan]

Have you read the treasury report? I doubt it.

I happen to be looking at it right now, and their modelling inputs a range of independent predictions of the early effect of Brexit (over the first 5 years) - you will find it on page 135. They range from about -0.75% to -4% as loss of GDP per year. So to take a middle level of approx 2-2.5% that is a loss to GDP of approx. £45-50 billion annually or around £900 million a week.

So what does the Treasury report say, that page references external studies. Link please?

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

Or was it a case your read something pulled a figure from thin air.

Of course I do, but the two are inextricably related - where do you think our public expenditure comes from - it comes from everything we earn as a country, i.e. GDP. If the economy shrinks or grows less then tax take goes down, and the demands on that taxation in terms of benefits etc go up as unemployment increases. So actually the proportional effect on the public purse tends to be greater than the actual GDP loss.

I agree the two are linked but you can't claim £900million a week in GDP is comparable to £100million a week of government funds.

We will be better off if we stay than if we leave - that is what every credible independent economic organisation predicts, both in the short term and in the long term. That of course is the only relevant question - a comparison between the scenarios if we leave compared to if we stay.

So you dodged the question, I'll have another go:-

Answer a simple yes/no question, does the treasury forecast predict that the UK will be richer (higher GDP) if we leave?

The answer is yes isn't it!

So if we left, we'd be richer than we are now, save £100million+ a week, be in charge of our own destiny, have controlled migration, higher wages, and be somewhat better protected from any EURO shit storm. Oh and a little bonus it would really piss off the SNP, and double bonus Scotland might leave the Union!

[ProfessorDavey]

So what does the Treasury report say, that page references external studies. Link please?

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

Or was it a case your read something pulled a figure from thin air.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

I agree the two are linked but you can't claim £900million a week in GDP is comparable to £100million a week of government funds.

I never claimed they were, but GDP impacts both on our individual prosperity but also on the health of the government finances and given that the latter represents approx. 40% of GDP, the just using a crude proportional basis the loss to the public finances of a reduction in GDP of £900 million a week in the Brexit case compared to remain will certainly be much greater than £100 million, more like £360 million. So even using this crude measure we would have £200-300 million a week less to spend on public services if we left compared to staying.

But of course it isn't that simply, a drop in GDP (whether absolute or relative to an alternative scenario) will affect jobs and overall prosperity resulting not just in a drop in tax take but an increase in expenditure on benefits due to that Brexit hit on growth/GDP. So some of the money that would could otherwise have spent on schools or hospitals etc will have to be spent on unemployment and other benefits.

So you dodged the question, I'll have another go:-

Answer a simple yes/no question, does the treasury forecast predict that the UK will be richer (higher GDP) if we leave?

The answer is yes isn't it!

That isn't a relevant question as we have two options so the relevant question is to compare the two and when you do that we will certainly be better off if we stay compared to leaving.

But actually there are some very, very credible voices (e.g. Mark Carney) who are suggesting that Brexit could result in the economy shrinking (i.e. negative growth), potentially even a recession (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) so it is quite possible that under Brexit we will be poorer in absolute terms not just relative to the scenario where we stay.

[jakswan]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

The page you gave cites other reports, what report claims the immediate impact to the UK economy will result in GDP falling by £900 million.

I never claimed they were, but GDP impacts both on our individual prosperity but also on the health of the government finances and given that the latter represents approx. 40% of GDP, the just using a crude proportional basis the loss to the public finances of a reduction in GDP of £900 million a week in the Brexit case compared to remain will certainly be much greater than £100 million, more like £360 million. So even using this crude measure we would have £200-300 million a week less to spend on public services if we left compared to staying.

So UK economy is now £2,000 billion, I think this £46 billion (0.9 x 52) so you think day one the economy would go to £1,956 billion?

But of course it isn't that simply, a drop in GDP (whether absolute or relative to an alternative scenario) will affect jobs and overall prosperity resulting not just in a drop in tax take but an increase in expenditure on benefits due to that Brexit hit on growth/GDP. So some of the money that would could otherwise have spent on schools or hospitals etc will have to be spent on unemployment and other benefits.

The building of schools & hospitals with the £100million a week will generate GDP.

That isn't a relevant question as we have two options so the relevant question is to compare the two and when you do that we will certainly be better off if we stay compared to leaving.

Well its not certainly is it, its a guess, the further out you go the more of a guess it is, in fact predicting to 2030 is pretty much a lottery.

But actually there are some very, very credible voices (e.g. Mark Carney) who are suggesting that Brexit could result in the economy shrinking (i.e. negative growth), potentially even a recession (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) so it is quite possible that under Brexit we will be poorer in absolute terms not just relative to the scenario where we stay.

Yes, plague of locusts, zombie invasion and all that.

At the end of the day using data the you cite as being valid claims we'll be better off then we are now if we leave.

[ProfessorDavey]

The page you gave cites other reports, what report claims the immediate impact to the UK economy will result in GDP falling by £900 million.

So UK economy is now £2,000 billion, I think this £46 billion (0.9 x 52) so you think day one the economy would go to £1,956 billion?

Where did I ever say that - this is what I actually said originally (from reply 769):

'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.'

Note 'short range' i.e. over the first few years after a referendum Brexit vote. So take you pick of any of the reports cited by the treasury on 'short range' effects, over the first 5 years. Any that suggest more than 3% reduction in GDP if we vote to leave compared to remaining fit my £900 million a week figure. So which would you like:

Perhaps PwC/CBI predicting -3.1 to -5.5 or
Citi -4.0 or
Deutsche Bank -3.0 or
Nomura -4.0 or
Société Générale -4.0 to -8.0

Indeed the only ones that don't attain that 3% figure are those that only look at the first one (or perhaps two) years and obviously there won't be an instant bounce back (actually there won't be a bounce back at all) so they will almost certainly attain a loss of GDP of 3% if we vote to leave compared to stay within 3 years-ish.

The building of schools & hospitals with the £100million a week will generate GDP.

That's correct - but if we vote to leave there will be less GDP, less tax revenue and less money available to build hospitals and schools - probably about £200-300 million knocked off the public expenditure budget every week. You don't seem to understand that you need to earn the money first before you can spend it and if the UK is earning less (as will be the case in both the short term and long term after Brexit compared to remaining) there will be less money to spend.

And we are already seeing the chilling effects of the uncertainty and possibility of a Brexit vote - so growth in the last quarter slower dramatically and just this week the CBI downgrading its growth forecast by 0.3% simply due to the uncertainty surrounding the referendum and the possibility of Brexit. If there is a vote for Brexit jun June those growth forecasts will plummet.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree its daft to bring it up, undermines his point i.e. that others have tried to unify Europe and it hasn't gone well. Livingston defending a Labour MP who suggested all Jews should be moved to the US brought up Hitler, actual quote.

If you can't understand the difference I don't know how to further explain it.

I suspect that's because you don't know how to explain it all since you have made no attempt to do so.


I'll happily point out why I think they are simiLar. First of all, Ken's point is arguable try if you read it as suggesting that Hitler would have seen an outcome of ethnic cleansing as achievable by working with Zionists supporting the establishment of a State of Isrwal. Not because he was a Zionist, but the quote doesn't say that, but because of the outcome. That that's already mad, is Ken at his worst but in a particularly narrow view of history it is arguable.


Same with Boris. It is,I would suggest,historically ignorant to suggest that Hitler was trying to unify Europe , (just as with Ken), but narrowly arguable that the outcome would have been that (just as with Ken) . Now if either of these characters were stulid, you might give one the benefit of the doubt, but they were both in the same dishonest manner using a narrow point to make a much more offensive implication.


Just to note the idea that at certain times in the past in completely different circumstances people might have tried to do something in a completely different way for completely different objectives and with such a narrow definition of the 'same' outcome means that anything like that is doomed to failure is an historically vacuous one.


I suspect this is not so much about what's next for the UK, but what's next for Boris as he is using this to appeal to those attracted by this sort of lazy rhetoric for post referendum reasons. It, as with much of the stuff coming from Cameron, means either they were lying previously, they are lying now or they always lying.


BTW for a differing perspective on Naz Shah's post

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/05/03/finkelstein-breaks-his-silence-tells-holocaust-mongers-it-is-time-to-crawl-back-into-your-sewer/

[Jack Knave]

No I don't think so, actually between you and me, (don't tell anyone) I think if we vote to leave we'll have to re-vote.

Do you really? How would that be implemented?

I expect some underhanded scheme but not that. The British people would rebel against such a thing.

[Jack Knave]

Where did I ever say that - this is what I actually said originally (from reply 769):

'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.'

Note 'short range' i.e. over the first few years after a referendum Brexit vote. So take you pick of any of the reports cited by the treasury on 'short range' effects, over the first 5 years. Any that suggest more than 3% reduction in GDP if we vote to leave compared to remaining fit my £900 million a week figure. So which would you like:

Perhaps PwC/CBI predicting -3.1 to -5.5 or
Citi -4.0 or
Deutsche Bank -3.0 or
Nomura -4.0 or
Société Générale -4.0 to -8.0

Indeed the only ones that don't attain that 3% figure are those that only look at the first one (or perhaps two) years and obviously there won't be an instant bounce back (actually there won't be a bounce back at all) so they will almost certainly attain a loss of GDP of 3% if we vote to leave compared to stay within 3 years-ish.
That's correct - but if we vote to leave there will be less GDP, less tax revenue and less money available to build hospitals and schools - probably about £200-300 million knocked off the public expenditure budget every week. You don't seem to understand that you need to earn the money first before you can spend it and if the UK is earning less (as will be the case in both the short term and long term after Brexit compared to remaining) there will be less money to spend.

And we are already seeing the chilling effects of the uncertainty and possibility of a Brexit vote - so growth in the last quarter slower dramatically and just this week the CBI downgrading its growth forecast by 0.3% simply due to the uncertainty surrounding the referendum and the possibility of Brexit. If there is a vote for Brexit jun June those growth forecasts will plummet.

But Davey all this is pointless because economists can't even predict stuff a year in advance. They just don't know, so all these figures are worthless. The issue isn't economic it is political and about democracy.