The result of the EU referendum:

[ProfessorDavey]

Please stop lying, the Treasury Report I was referring to predicted in GDP terms we'll be richer than we are now if we leave, that is a stone cold fact.

Nope this analysis (from the Treasury) is, unsurprisingly, completely consistent with their earlier report - the difference being that this report focusses on short range effects (over the first few years) while the earlier report headlined on the effects by 2030, but of course modelled the early years hit to the economy as part of that analysis.

This new drivel by a man who is supposed to be protecting our economy is damaging our economy by talking it down so badly.

But this is from the Treasury, you know the people who produced that report which you are fixated with (why I have no idea). So when the Treasury produce something that you mistakenly interpret as being positive to your position you bring it up endlessly, when the self same people produce something you don't like it is drivel - double standards to the n-th degree.

On the Sunday Politics the predictions from one of those reports that Davey is a fan boy of put it something like this:-

Growth in UK economy by 2030

Stay 42%
Leave with free trade deal 39%
Leave with no free trade deal 36%

Citation please or are these numbers just more made up stuff from you and your Brexit chums.

Sounds a bit like the earlier Treasury figures, except you have them wrong. The Treasury predict that by 2030 Brexit would result in a loss of GDP of approximately 4% if we become a member of the EEA (which would mean signing to up pretty less all EU regulations including free movement of labour), over 6% if we negotiate a bilateral deal and 7.5% without a deal - compared to the case where we remain. That's a big hit on our economy compared to staying. And of course there will be a big economic hit in the early years which is likely to result in recession (as indicated but the Treasury, the Bank of England, PwC/CBI, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Nomura, Société Générale etc)

What a cheap price for freedom!

Your complacency about the damage that Brexit would do to our economic performance in both the short and long terms is really quite staggering.

[jakswan]

Nope this analysis (from the Treasury) is, unsurprisingly, completely consistent with their earlier report - the difference being that this report focusses on short range effects (over the first few years) while the earlier report headlined on the effects by 2030, but of course modelled the early years hit to the economy as part of that analysis.

Where in the report does it mention this?

But this is from the Treasury, you know the people who produced that report which you are fixated with (why I have no idea). So when the Treasury produce something that you mistakenly interpret as being positive to your position you bring it up endlessly, when the self same people produce something you don't like it is drivel - double standards to the n-th degree.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that this report states that we will be better off than we are now if we leave. Don't get me wrong I think its garbage but you cited it as evidence for your position.

Citation please or are these numbers just more made up stuff from you and your Brexit chums.

I can't check (on train) but I think its in this clip
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vxspb

They also discuss the billions that HMRC have forced to pay back to big businesses as a result of EU rules. No wonder they are in favour of staying!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c3fcd5a-4287-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html#axzz49TJdkQoN

Sounds a bit like the earlier Treasury figures, except you have them wrong. The Treasury predict that by 2030 Brexit would result in a loss of GDP of approximately 4% if we become a member of the EEA (which would mean signing to up pretty less all EU regulations including free movement of labour), over 6% if we negotiate a bilateral deal and 7.5% without a deal - compared to the case where we remain. That's a big hit on our economy compared to staying. And of course there will be a big economic hit in the early years which is likely to result in recession (as indicated but the Treasury, the Bank of England, PwC/CBI, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Nomura, Société Générale etc)

Which is a nonsense.

Your complacency about the damage that Brexit would do to our economic performance in both the short and long terms is really quite staggering.

I'm not buying what you are selling.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where in the report does it mention this?

All over the place. Over and over the earlier report indicates that is focusses on the long term and that 'The short-term economic impact will be assessed in a future government publication' - on other words the one published today.

But in the earlier report it is clear that there will be a serious 'shock' to the economy in the short term - e.g. chapter 3 of the report which indicates very clearly the short term risks, plus also includes (on p135) a range of independent estimates of the size of that short term economic shock.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that this report states that we will be better off than we are now if we leave. Don't get me wrong I think its garbage but you cited it as evidence for your position.

I can't check (on train) but I think its in this clip
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vxspb

Hmm - that's convenient - can't back up your arguments. Bit like your continued failure to provide a report fro a credible independent economic organisation that thinks that the UK will be better off if we leave than if we stay.

They also discuss the billions that HMRC have forced to pay back to big businesses as a result of EU rules. No wonder they are in favour of staying!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c3fcd5a-4287-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html#axzz49TJdkQoN

Behind the ft paywall so cannot read - hmm how convenient for you again.

Which is a nonsense.

What all these highly respected credible and independent economic organisations or Jakswan - whose economic credibility is ...?

I'm not buying what you are selling.

I'm not selling anything, merely providing the expert opinion. You on the other hand are selling myth and fantasy that somehow if we leave the UK economy will just carry on swimmingly in comparison with the situation if we stay, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

[jakswan]

All over the place. Over and over the earlier report indicates that is focusses on the long term and that 'The short-term economic impact will be assessed in a future government publication' - on other words the one published today.

So the report we were discussing didn't actually claim we would be having a recession glad we cleared that up.

But in the earlier report it is clear that there will be a serious 'shock' to the economy in the short term - e.g. chapter 3 of the report which indicates very clearly the short term risks, plus also includes (on p135) a range of independent estimates of the size of that short term economic shock.

But the report concludes if we leave we will be richer than we are now by 2030, undermines your argument really.

Hmm - that's convenient - can't back up your arguments. Bit like your continued failure to provide a report fro a credible independent economic organisation that thinks that the UK will be better off if we leave than if we stay.
Behind the ft paywall so cannot read - hmm how convenient for you again.

Watch the clip its 9 minutes as I recall, it has a Bremainer from your buddies at the CBI.

What all these highly respected credible and independent economic organisations or Jakswan - whose economic credibility is ...?

We can both cite expert opinion supporting our positions, I think it gets us no where.

I'm not selling anything, merely providing the expert opinion. You on the other hand are selling myth and fantasy that somehow if we leave the UK economy will just carry on swimmingly in comparison with the situation if we stay, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Davey you are no expert. I think the Treasury report is a nonsense, you consider it 'expert evidence', that report concludes by 2030 we will be better off then we are now if we leave. To pretend that it doesn't is a fantasy of yours.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the report we were discussing didn't actually claim we would be having a recession glad we cleared that up.

Indeed it did as the estimates on negative short term effect are sufficient to counter the predicted levels of growth in a remain scenario. But as they always said the detailed report on short term effects would be published later - and indeed this is what has happened with publication this morning:

So we now have:

http://tinyurl.com/hxfnjz7

Which focuses on the short term impact to our economy.

To go with:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/jar59tq

Which focuses on long term effects.

Both are consistent one with another and the conclusion is clear - this a direct quote from the report published today:

'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'

And this is from the same people who you keep endlessly referring to on their long range analysis as if it somehow backs up your view. It doesn't - the Treasury view is very clear - if we leave the economy will shrink resulting in recession in the short term. The recovery from that recession will not be sufficient to make up the hit, such that the economy will be substantially smaller even in 2030 if we leave compared to remaining.

Lets hope you aren't one of those 500,000 who will lose their jobs in the next few years if we vote for Brexit next month.

Moderator: edited to shorten two URLs

[ProfessorDavey]

Watch the clip its 9 minutes as I recall, it has a Bremainer from your buddies at the CBI.

Just have - and I'm struggling to see how anything in that interview backs up your case.

And yes I can see the particular report, which is from the CBI/PWC - indeed one of the reports mentioned on p135 of the Treasury report. It doesn't make comfortable reading for Brexiters as it suggests a significant hit on the economy with Brexit in the short term which is never recovered.

So here are some actual quotes from the report:

'We estimate that total GDP in 2020 could be around 3% and 5.5% lower under the FTA and WTO scenarios respectively than if the UK remains in the UK'

'We estimate that GDP per household could be around £2,100-3,700 lower in 2020 if the UK leaves the EU.'

'UK employment (the number of people employed) in 2030 could be between 350,000 and 600,000 lower in our two exit scenarios relative to remaining in the EU."

[Nearly Sane]

Points to Sarah Wollaston



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eurosceptic-tory-mp-dr-sarah-wollaston-refuses-to-hand-out-misleading-vote-leave-nhs-leaflets-a7043166.html

[Jack Knave]

So comparing the EU to Hitler isn't playing dirty!?!

No. Playing dirty means hitting below the belt and causing pain. He did not compare the EU with Hitler. However, at best it was amusing that Hitler got reference into all this and at worst just plain stupid.

Or calling on the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England for simply doing his jobs etc etc.

That was a plausible request in my view as he over stepped the mark into the political arena.

And of course there is the disinformation - trying to imply that all credible economic organisations are lying while not providing a jot of credible evidence to contradict them might not be playing dirty in one respect but it certainly isn't playing clean.

As you know I don't agree that these so called professional and independent organisation are worth tiddly squat. They are all run by the same kind of people who are pure idiots. They are all part of this Neo-Liberal project as is the EU. You can't trust them!!!

[jakswan]

And this is from the same people who you keep endlessly referring to on their long range analysis as if it somehow backs up your view. It doesn't - the Treasury view is very clear - if we leave the economy will shrink resulting in recession in the short term. The recovery from that recession will not be sufficient to make up the hit, such that the economy will be substantially smaller even in 2030 if we leave compared to remaining.

Yes we'll be better off in 2030 than we are now if we leave the EU.

Lets hope you aren't one of those 500,000 who will lose their jobs in the next few years if we vote for Brexit next month.

These 500,000 job losses are a fantasy, from the report:-

Immediate impact of a vote to leave the EU on the UK (% difference from base level unless specified otherwise)
Shock scenarioa Severe shock scenarioa
GDP -3.6% -6.0%

Nothing changes if we vote leave, its a two year process. 6% immediately is utterly ridiculous.

I have to wonder why Cameron and Osborne felt it would be so bad why they are having a referendum in the first place.

[jakswan]

Just have - and I'm struggling to see how anything in that interview backs up your case.

And yes I can see the particular report, which is from the CBI/PWC - indeed one of the reports mentioned on p135 of the Treasury report. It doesn't make comfortable reading for Brexiters as it suggests a significant hit on the economy with Brexit in the short term which is never recovered.

So here are some actual quotes from the report:

'We estimate that total GDP in 2020 could be around 3% and 5.5% lower under the FTA and WTO scenarios respectively than if the UK remains in the UK'

'We estimate that GDP per household could be around £2,100-3,700 lower in 2020 if the UK leaves the EU.'

'UK employment (the number of people employed) in 2030 could be between 350,000 and 600,000 lower in our two exit scenarios relative to remaining in the EU."

So your buddies the CBI's report does actually conclude the following:-

Growth in UK economy by 2030

Stay 42%
Leave with free trade deal 39%
Leave with no free trade deal 36%

[Jack Knave]

The dinosaurs dominated the land for 120 million years. That seems like success to me.

But the fact is they became a liability when the new conditions arrived where their style of living, adaptation and big size answer to life weighed them down and brought about their demise. It is the same with the EU. And we have a foreteller in this with the USSR.

[Jack Knave]

That story is from a year ago. Did we help bail Greece out in the end?

No, thank god.

More to the point, it would have been in our interest to help bail Greece out...

No it wouldn't, Greece is bankrupt they haven't a hope in hell in paying back their debts. 

...and it's the right thing to do unless you take pleasure in watching people's lives go down the toilet.

No it is not, see above. The right thing to have done was to write down their debts. The people taking pleasure in watching the Greeks go down the toilet were the Troika.

If the Eurozone collapses, it doesn't matter whether we are in the EU or out of it, it will be very bad news for Britain. At least, if we are in the EU, the Eurozone has a smaller chance of collapse.

The Euro is going to fail anyway so best to get as far as possible from that pile of dung. We shouldn't give our freedom away just to try to keep that abortion together!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

So your buddies the CBI's report does actually conclude the following:-

Growth in UK economy by 2030

Stay 42%
Leave with free trade deal 39%
Leave with no free trade deal 36%

Lets put that in real money shall we.

That means that with the trade deal we would be £1.2 billion a week worse off than if we remain.
Without the deal that would be about £2.5 billion a week.

Strange how the Brexiters obsess about the supposed £350 million a week we 'send' to the EU (which is of course a lie) yet are totally blasé about losing between £1.2 and £2.5 billion a week from our economy. And the 350,000-600,000 lost jobs in the economy compared to staying.

And don't forget that the CBI/PWC estimates are towards the lower end of the expert opinion on how badly our economy would be hit by Brexit.

[jeremyp]

By you not arguing for us joining the EURO is you effectively sticking two fingers up at the beleaguered people who live in the Eurozone.

No I'm not. I'm not suggesting we should leave Greece to crash and burn. Sticking two fingers up seems to be your department.

[jeremyp]

He did not compare the EU with Hitler.

Boris Johnson did - and Napoleon.

I have to laugh at all the Brexiters who came out claiming it was a historian's analysis. What Boris said was

Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.

That's not a historian's analysis, it's a cheap sound bite.

[ProfessorDavey]

Boris Johnson did - and Napoleon.

I have to laugh at all the Brexiters who came out claiming it was a historian's analysis. What Boris said was

'Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.'

That's not a historian's analysis, it's a cheap sound bite.

Does anyone seriously think that the EU will end in 'tragedy' in the manner of Hitler and Napoleon - i.e. with a major European war and millions dead. Sure the EU might fall apart, but if it did so it would be likely to be via a series of country based referendums followed by a load of negotiations on exit. Hardly the same thing.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect we will see more of this approach from Remain - though good to see someone admit some issues with their own side, just like Sarah Wollaston for Leave


https://next.ft.com/content/1fe4e0ec-1e96-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15

[jakswan]

Lets put that in real money shall we.

I suspect you are going to do that but ok.

That means that with the trade deal we would be £1.2 billion a week worse off than if we remain.
Without the deal that would be about £2.5 billion a week.

Show your workings but ok, assuming this is GDP?

Strange how the Brexiters obsess about the supposed £350 million a week we 'send' to the EU (which is of course a lie) yet are totally blasé about losing between £1.2 and £2.5 billion a week from our economy. And the 350,000-600,000 lost jobs in the economy compared to staying.

Strange how some Bremainers still can't understand the differance between Govt. funds and GDP and comparing them is nonsense. I've already taken you to task on this.

And don't forget that the CBI/PWC estimates are towards the lower end of the expert opinion on how badly our economy would be hit by Brexit.

And don't forget that forecasting what the GDP would be in 14 years time is an utter lottery.

[Nearly Sane]

Odds now shifted to 6/1 on for Remain

[ProfessorDavey]

I suspect you are going to do that but ok.

Show your workings but ok, assuming this is GDP?

GDP is currently approx. £2,000billion - if that rose by 42% then it would be £2,840 billion by 2030 (as estimated if we remain). If it only grows by 39% then it would be £2,780billion or by just 36% it would be £2,720billion (which are the figures suggested for the EEA-type scenario and a looser bilateral arrangement. Those differences are approx. £60 billion and £120 billion respectively, which on a weekly basis provides the figures I gave.

Strange how some Bremainers still can't understand the differance between Govt. funds and GDP and comparing them is nonsense. I've already taken you to task on this.

I understand the difference perfectly, but government spending is currently 43% - so that hit of £1.2-2.5billion of GDP per week equates to a hit of between £500million and £1.2billion a week hit to public purse - somewhat larger than you £350million a week (which is in itself a lie). And by the way the CBI/PWC modelling factor in the contributions to the EU so the difference really is £500million and £1.2billion a week, not £500million and £1.2billion a week minus net contribution to the EU.

And don't forget that forecasting what the GDP would be in 14 years time is an utter lottery.

Not helping your cause because there is absolute consistency in expert opinion on the effect of Brexit in the short term on the economy - a very significant hit, which is as likely as not to result in negative growth in the short term. So the Treasury suggest this to be about 6% while the CBI/PWC indicate this to be 3-5.5% lower.

[jakswan]

I understand the difference perfectly, but government spending is currently 43% - so that hit of £1.2-2.5billion of GDP per week equates to a hit of between £500million and £1.2billion a week hit to public purse - somewhat larger than you £350million a week (which is in itself a lie). And by the way the CBI/PWC modelling factor in the contributions to the EU so the difference really is £500million and £1.2billion a week, not £500million and £1.2billion a week minus net contribution to the EU.

So the difference in terms of government spending is that in 14 years time the government might have £150 million more to spend than if we left the EU. Well actually that is not true is it because our payments will go up substantially because a lot of it is based on GDP. So the £350 million we pay now will also rise by 42% if we stay £497million.

So the difference is £3 million a week and in government spending terms almost irrelevant.

What cheap price freedom!

[jakswan]

No I'm not. I'm not suggesting we should leave Greece to crash and burn. Sticking two fingers up seems to be your department.

If we joined the EURO would the EURO be safer?

[jeremyp]

If we joined the EURO would the EURO be safer?

What do you mean by "would the EURO be safer"? and why do you keep shouting?

[ProfessorDavey]

So the difference in terms of government spending is that in 14 years time the government might have £150 million more to spend than if we left the EU. Well actually that is not true is it because our payments will go up substantially because a lot of it is based on GDP. So the £350 million we pay now will also rise by 42% if we stay £497million.

So the difference is £3 million a week and in government spending terms almost irrelevant.

What cheap price freedom!

No it isn't because firstly the £350 million a week is a lie - and even were it the gross amount the relevant component is the net payment and secondly because alterations in GDP take account of simple inflationary changes and are therefore the differences adjusted back to 2016 prices.

So you can see this very clearly on the Treasury 'long term' report (on page 7). There the middle point (i.e. not simply going for EEA which would of course still require substantial net EU contribution, as is the case for Norway) the annual effect on receipts is £36billion (at 2015 prices) - our net EU contribution is about £8 billion a year (again at 2015 prices) - so government accounts will be not far off £30 billion worse off per annum at 2015 prices, or £600 million a week. And that takes account of change in net contribution to the EU and also relies on us sorting a free trade deal with the EU within 2 years of leaving.

[ProfessorDavey]

What cheap price freedom!

I disagree because I see no meaningful loss of freedom by being a member of the EU, which is at least as democratic as our UK government, arguable rather more so.

But also I thought you wanted to control levels of migration - you do realise that the CBI/PWC modelling of negative effect on the economy from leaving the EU is based on relaxing migration - making it easier for immigrants to get visas to come here. Were they to have modelled a situation where migration was significantly curtailed by the UK government the effect on the economy would, of course, be far worse as migrants are significant net contributors to our economy.