The result of the EU referendum:

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

That simply isn't true - by and large economists are pretty good at predicting matters into the future, and more so when they can get their teeth into two different scenarios which is the case here. Sure it might be the case that in both scenarios growth is a little better or a little worse than predicted, but predicting the difference between the two is very likely to  be correct. And in this case (unlike some others) there is no disagreement - all credible independent economic organisations agree that Brexit will be bad for the UK economy compared to remaining - and the reasons in the short term are obvious. The one thing that business and the 'economy' hate is uncertainty and with Brexit there will be massive uncertainty for years. Lets face it there isn't a consensus amongst the leading Brexit figures as to what the preferred economic and trading position should be with the EU post Brexit. If the campaigners haven't got a clue how on earth can business feel confident to invest etc.

But on the other point, actually I agree with you - it isn't just about the economics (although thats a factor). I'd have a lot more respect for Jakswan (as an example) if he accepted that the economic situation will be worse if we leave rather than remain, rather than somehow claiming that all the credible independent economic organisations are wrong and he (without one iota of economic credibility) is right. At least if he accepted we'd be worse off, but it is (in his opinion) a price worth paying, then we can have a serious debate. I'd disagree and indeed I think the EU is so fundamentally a good thing for peace, internationalisation, cooperation etc etc that I'd still be in favour even if there were a limited economic price to pay (which of course there isn't, quite the reverse). But trying to argue against all of the credible economic opinion is simply delusional.

[jakswan]

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

Mentioning Hitler whilst talking about Jews to make a political point is offensive and insensitive. Ken paraphrased 'in 1932 before Hitler went mad in he was a Zionist', you don't understand how deeply offensive that is?

[jakswan]

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

Or cover a small fraction of the £900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU.

The Treasury report you quoted didn't make that claim. If it made the £900million claim (which it didn't, this seems to be a figure you've made up yourself) its claim would have been:-

At some point in the future our GDP will rise by £900 million more if we stay in the EU than if we left.

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

Links please, all you have given me is a link to a report which cites those reports.

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.

If we vote to leave then there will be no uncertainty. What will be uncertain is if we vote to remain by a small margin because we'll need another vote in a few years.

[Nearly Sane]

Mentioning Hitler whilst talking about Jews to make a political point is offensive and insensitive. Ken paraphrased 'in 1932 before Hitler went mad in he was a Zionist', you don't understand how deeply offensive that is?

Yep, just understand that, as I would suggest was made clear in my previous post. Mentioning Hitler when many of the founders of the EU had fought against Nazism is deeply offensive. So if you hold the same principle, Boris is doing the same thing.

[Nearly Sane]

The Treasury report you quoted didn't make that claim. If it made the £900million claim (which it didn't, this seems to be a figure you've made up yourself) its claim would have been:-

At some point in the future our GDP will rise by £900 million more if we stay in the EU than if we left.

Links please, all you have given me is a link to a report which cites those reports.

If we vote to leave then there will be no uncertainty. What will be uncertain is if we vote to remain by a small margin because we'll need another vote in a few years.

There would be no uncertainty but your argument is that that economically there is always uncertainty. Mmm contradict yourself much?

[jakswan]

Yep, just understand that, as I would suggest was made clear in my previous post. Mentioning Hitler when many of the founders of the EU had fought against Nazism is deeply offensive. So if you hold the same principle, Boris is doing the same thing.

In one sense yes, but Hitler - Jews, you heard about the holocaust right?

Ken brought up Hitler whilst defending someone who suggested all the Jews should be sent to the USA.

[jakswan]

There would be no uncertainty but your argument is that that economically there is always uncertainty. Mmm contradict yourself much?

What? Do you have a point to make or just what to make snidely comments?

[Nearly Sane]

What? Do you have a point to make or just what to make snidely comments?

Thought it was a bit simple, if you make a claim and then say all such claims are worthless then the claim is undermined. This isn't 'snidely' just logical.

[Nearly Sane]

In one sense yes, but Hitler - Jews, you heard about the holocaust right?

Ken brought up Hitler whilst defending someone who suggested all the Jews should be sent to the USA.

And Boris brought it up in the sense of saying, oops look, Hitler like EU. When you want to get back to me that he didn't know what that meant with an argument, good. So far nothing. Are you saying he knew nothing about the implication (therefore idiot) or that he was hiding it? (liar). Or something else, please explain?

[ProfessorDavey]

The Treasury report you quoted didn't make that claim. If it made the £900million claim (which it didn't, this seems to be a figure you've made up yourself) its claim would have been:-

At some point in the future our GDP will rise by £900 million more if we stay in the EU than if we left.

Which is true because by 2030, according to the treasury report the difference will be more like £2.3 billion a week on the basis of the 6% gap in GDP if we leave compared to staying. But then I never claimed that the £900 million a week came from that report. I was very clear in my earlier post as to its origin, which was taking a middle case scenario of short range hit on GDP and extrapolating to a weekly reduction in GDP if we leave compared to staying.

Links please, all you have given me is a link to a report which cites those reports.

Details of every one of the report is clearly indicated in the footnotes in the Treasury - you can simply google the title to find the report.

If we vote to leave then there will be no uncertainty. What will be uncertain is if we vote to remain by a small margin because we'll need another vote in a few years.

Oh you are a comedian - there will be massive uncertainty, starting with who will actually be in charge of any negotiation. And don't forget that if you take Farage, Johnson, Gove and Redwood as leading Brexiters they totally and utterly disagree with each other on their preferred  post Brexit settlement with the EU - they range from complete isolation from the single market through to being in EFTA/EEA.

And given that any deal will need ratification by 28 countries the levels of uncertainty are endless.

If we remain we know exactly what will happen on June 24th - we will carry on as normal.

[Sebastian Toe]

Dear Trent,

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.

No worries there, all you have to do is go to the Glasgow permit office, offer the  clerk a swig from a bottle of Buckie and your permit will be stamped and any evidence of furryboots will be ignored!

[~TW~]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/670806/video-Ryanair-boss-Michael-O-Leary-cheap-flights-EU-Brussels-Brexit-referendum

[Gonnagle]

Dear Seb,

No worries there, all you have to do is go to the Glasgow permit office, offer the  clerk a swig from a bottle of Buckie and your permit will be stamped and any evidence of furryboots will be ignored!

What Universe are you living on a Eastcoaster would first have to buy the Buckie, this would entail a major operation of forcing the wallet open, then we have the Mythological premise of a eastcoaster offering a drink, yer living in La La land.

Gonnagle.

[jakswan]

Which is true because by 2030, according to the treasury report the difference will be more like £2.3 billion a week on the basis of the 6% gap in GDP if we leave compared to staying. But then I never claimed that the £900 million a week came from that report. I was very clear in my earlier post as to its origin, which was taking a middle case scenario of short range hit on GDP and extrapolating to a weekly reduction in GDP if we leave compared to staying.

Glad you agree what I said is true. Which report suggests a decrease to GDP.

Or cover a small fraction of the £900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU.

So the treasury report doesn't suggest GDP shrinking which report does?

Details of every one of the report is clearly indicated in the footnotes in the Treasury - you can simply google the title to find the report.

No you claim the UK economy is going to shrink and based that conclusion on a report, you cite the report you consider valid. The treasury report doesn't claim the economy shrinks so we can put that aside.

Oh you are a comedian - there will be massive uncertainty, starting with who will actually be in charge of any negotiation. And don't forget that if you take Farage, Johnson, Gove and Redwood as leading Brexiters they totally and utterly disagree with each other on their preferred  post Brexit settlement with the EU - they range from complete isolation from the single market through to being in EFTA/EEA.

We were talking about uncertainty over leaving, its just over a month and that specific uncertainty will end. The elected government run the country most of those are not even in Cabinet positions, more scaremongering.

And given that any deal will need ratification by 28 countries the levels of uncertainty are endless.

It will never end?

If we remain we know exactly what will happen on June 24th - we will carry on as normal.

Yes erosion of sovereignty, uncontrolled immigration, less democracy, another Eurozone crisis, more bureaucracy.

[ProfessorDavey]

What will be uncertain is if we vote to remain by a small margin because we'll need another vote in a few years.

So you clearly are Nigel Farage in disguise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.

[Nearly Sane]

So you clearly are Nigel Farage in disguise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.

I take it jakswan and Nige are of the opinion that should leave win but by a narrow margin, we would need another vote on a few years too?

[SusanDoris]

This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.

I do so hope you are right!

[Nearly Sane]

So you clearly are Nigel Farage in disguise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.

One quibblette with this. It comes across as someone who suspects he is going to lose the vote.

[Sebastian Toe]

Dear Seb,

What Universe are you living on a Eastcoaster would first have to buy the Buckie, this would entail a major operation of forcing the wallet open, then we have the Mythological premise of a eastcoaster offering a drink, yer living in La La land.

Gonnagle.

Nope, all you have to do is prise a bottle, which still has some dregs in it, from the hands of one of the semi concious Weegies lying in the street outside.
Any self respecting E-C would have no problem in handing over that 'drink' to anyone!

I'm beginning to think that you live in Newton Mearns. It's a BF free area isn't it?

[SusanDoris]

A friend has sent me this link
https://www.brock.ac.uk/news/brock-college-eu-debate-draws-crowds/#.VzrMPozIdsk.email
to the Brockenhurst College debate.
Well done, the young!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Seb,

Prise a bottle with dregs from one of our less fortunate, only a eastcoater could imagine that happening, that is on the same level as TW reading a book on evolution.

Newton Mearns, fur coat and nae knickers territory, not me mate, I was born two seconds away from the headquarters of the Orange Order and a mile from what the Tic supporters call Paradise, nae wonder I am totally bloody confussed, being a true Weggie is a complicated business.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

I take it jakswan and Nige are of the opinion that should leave win but by a narrow margin, we would need another vote on a few years too?

Of course not - it is the classic problem of the one-sidedness of referendums.

You can vote for the status quo as many times as you like but it only remains valid until the other side kicks up a fuss sufficient for another vote - so it is always reversible. But a single vote for change is irrevocable.

So one side has to win again and again, while the other side only has to win once.

Same situation with IndyRef - remain wins and within months the SNP are trying to make a case for another vote. Had the Yes vote won that would be it - there would have been no turning back, no referendum in a newly independent Scotland asking if the people wanted to reverse their decision and join the UK again.

So on the EU referendum - we need equality - if leave win it closes down the argument - we leave and that's it. Likewise if we vote to remain - that's it, we stay. No chance of another referendum in a few months or a few years.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course not - it is the classic problem of the one-sidedness of referendums.

You can vote for the status quo as many times as you like but it only remains valid until the other side kicks up a fuss sufficient for another vote - so it is always reversible. But a single vote for change is irrevocable.

So one side has to win again and again, while the other side only has to win once.

Same situation with IndyRef - remain wins and within months the SNP are trying to make a case for another vote. Had the Yes vote won that would be it - there would have been no turning back, no referendum in a newly independent Scotland asking if the people wanted to reverse their decision and join the UK again.

So on the EU referendum - we need equality - if leave win it closes down the argument - we leave and that's it. Likewise if we vote to remain - that's it, we stay. No chance of another referendum in a few months or a few years.

I pretty much agree with this but the SNP changed after the referendum in quadrupling in size. There is a force of democracy that was recognised by Ledru-Rollin when he said 'Ve suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive'. That combined with the possibility of a Scots In, UK Out vote in the referendum can be argued to be such a change that another referendum would be justifiable.


That said I am getting bored of the constant campaign mode

[ProfessorDavey]

I pretty much agree with this but the SNP changed after the referendum in quadrupling in size. There is a force of democracy that was recognised by Ledru-Rollin when he said 'Ve suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive'. That combined with the possibility of a Scots In, UK Out vote in the referendum can be argued to be such a change that another referendum would be justifiable.


That said I am getting bored of the constant campaign mode

The problem with referendums on the kind of issues that aren't readily reversible is that if you are in favour of change you can lose as many times as you want, you only need to win once. And for those who want status quo yo can win as many times as you want but you only need to lose once for there to be irrevocable change.

That is a fundamental problem of the referendum system in a democratic sense, because it unbalances the effects of a vote for status quo and a vote for change and therefore isn't equitably democratic. I'm not saying I have an answer, just raising the issue. But certainly it isn't reasonable of a losing 'no change' vote ('Yes' in Scotland or 'Brexit' in the UK) to demand another vote in just a few years unless they would likewise accept a new vote in a few years had they won - but they wouldn't.

[jeremyp]

I take it jakswan and Nige are of the opinion that should leave win but by a narrow margin, we would need another vote on a few years too?

No.

A future government will try to take us back in based on a General Election manifesto promise as a way to reverse the damage done to the economy and our world standing by leaving. Of course, by then Scotland will have ceded from the UK and negotiated its own EU membership and will use its veto to stop us as a way to punish us for leading them down the road to disaster.