Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

smjm wrote: »

Indeed, we can only speculate on Scotland's future. As for the UK as it stands now, there was already a fluctuating exchange rate with the Eurozone, and clearly many Leave voters wanted an end to freedom of movement. That just leaves the risk of tariffs, which I'm sure many Leavers would be happy enough to accept as a price of exiting the EU.

I’m sorry, but that’s utter nonsense. The Leave campaign sold the message that, post Brexit, the UK will continue to have access to the single market while also gaining control over the number of EU immigrants who can enter the country. There is no way they can now turn around and say “sorry, we can’t access the single market”. Likewise, they can’t fail to obtain restrictions on movement of labour. Essentially, they’ve painted themselves into a very small corner.

smjm wrote: »

I always read such reports with an open mind. They might be right; they might be wrong; time will tell.

Is this to be the legacy of the Leave campaign? Experts are no more expert than the rest of us? Evidence-based analysis is no better than guessing?

smjm wrote: »

Low level immigration was never really an issue. If they hadn't opened the door to Poland before other countries in the EU...

They would have opened the door to somewhere else. The British economy very clearly needs immigrants – that’s why they’re coming here. Rather than throwing their toys out of the pram and leaving the EU, the British public would have been much better off questioning why it is that the British economy needs all these immigrants from Poland, Ireland and elsewhere. As was hinted at earlier in the thread (by Blitzkrieg, I believe) surges in migration are often indicative of an underlying socio-economic problem.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

I haven’t seen too many people put forward a compelling case for such a scenario.

Neither are there compelling cases for other scenarios. Just too far off and too much unknown factors to predict.

CMOTDibbler

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow. I would have thought they'd have this done before two weeks was up, not two months!

Procedures dontcha know, the membership have to have their say. :rolleyes:

Stringed instruments and burning cities come to mind.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Neither are there compelling cases for other scenarios. Just too far off and too much unknown factors to predict.

Well that's not true. Several organisations (the Treasury, Bank of England, IMF, etc.) have projected that the UK will be significantly worse off in 2030 outside the EU relative to how it would fare inside.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Brexit may well expose the country’s dangerous over-reliance on London.

A new report out today suggests that as much as 30% of the UK's tax take is generated in London, despite it having only about 13% of the population:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36733339

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that's not true. Several organisations (the Treasury, Bank of England, IMF, etc.) have projected that the UK will be significantly worse off in 2030 outside the EU relative to how it would fare inside.

Without knowing what status the UK will have and what political decisions British governments and EU institutions will make in the next 15 years?

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Without knowing what status the UK will have and what political decisions British governments and EU institutions will make in the next 15 years?

Different scenarios were obviously presented, but the UK was worse off in all of them.

It seems as though you're leaning toward the "nobody knows for sure what will happen, therefore all projections are meaningless" argument. This despite the fact that we are currently witnessing the economic shock that virtually every economic organisation predicted.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

It will be at least another 10 or 20 years before anyone can start drawing proper conclusions. Not sure all of us will be left on this forum to discuss again :-)

Recession this year - definitely caused by Brexit.

Uncertainty next year and the year after - definitely caused by Brexit.

Then either:

a) climbdown by UK to Norway status, markets cheer up, business back to normal, everyone happy outside the bloodbath in Parliament

or

b) England out of the Single Market, another, worse recession, capital flight, currency devaluation, emergency budgets, etc. etc

Definitely caused by brexit.

I will certainly be here in 2-3 years time to say I Told You So.

smjm

Lockstep wrote: »

Approaching reports with an open mind does not mean discounting expert opinion.

Never said it did.

Lockstep wrote:

As the Financial Times notes, the consensus among economists is that Brexit will have a negative impact on the British economy. There was never any such consensus among economists on joining the Euro.

There was certainly a large majority who thought it would be in the UK's economic interests to join:
http://www.economist.com/node/199382

Lockstep wrote:

Once we start going down the route of "But they might be wrong even though they're experts", we're entering extremely silly territory. That's why we rely on experts. If you can disprove their arguments then go ahead but you'd need to show a very strong burden of proof to show that so many economists are wrong.

So any expert who disagrees is just silly?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dont-panic-britains-economy-can-survive-just-fine-outside-the-european-union-a7118736.html

Lockstep wrote:

Presumably due to ignorance on behalf of the British voters, seeing as EU immigrants have been a huge net contributor to the UK economy. This includes Eastern European ones.

I don't have much time for those who deem others "ignorant".

Rightwing

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that's not true. Several organisations (the Treasury, Bank of England, IMF, etc.) have projected that the UK will be significantly worse off in 2030 outside the EU relative to how it would fare inside.

It's hard to envisage the EU surviving to 2020, let alone beyond that.

The Tusks/Junckers of this world spent so much time pandering to the Greeks, they hadn't the foresight to look further ahead. They will now be faced with 1 of the world's great recessions. Will they have answers? :pac:

twinytwo

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that's not true. Several organisations (the Treasury, Bank of England, IMF, etc.) have projected that the UK will be significantly worse off in 2030 outside the EU relative to how it would fare inside.

Many of the same groups that never saw 2008 coming as well....

CMOTDibbler

smjm wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dont-panic-britains-economy-can-survive-just-fine-outside-the-european-union-a7118736.html

I've read a number of that guy's articles. He seems to ignore the UK's reliance on services and how much of UK GDP they make up. He makes a big deal about the fact that 13% of UK GDP is exports to the EU without the caveat that almost 80% of GDP is in services and that banking makes up a very high proportion of that.

So basing your argument on what may happen to 13% of GDP whilst ignoring the much larger elephant in the room is a little disingenuous.

Lockstep

smjm wrote: »

Never said it did.

When it was highlighted that there was an economic consensus that Brexit would be bad for the British economy, you repeated your false equivalence that we just don't know. What exactly are you trying to say then?

smjm wrote: »

There was certainly a large majority who thought it would be in the UK's economic interests to join:
http://www.economist.com/node/199382

First of all, that doesn't show a general consensus as with the negative effects of Brexit, it shows a majority of economists.
Secondly, they don't state "dire predictions" as you claim. They said it'd be in Britain's interests to join.

smjm wrote: »

So any expert who disagrees is just silly?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dont-panic-britains-economy-can-survive-just-fine-outside-the-european-union-a7118736.html

I clearly stated

Once we start going down the route of "But they might be wrong even though they're experts", we're entering extremely silly territory.

I never said "any expert who disagrees is just silly" or anything like that. Please don't misrepresent me like that. There will of course always be experts who disagree (earlier in the thread, someone made the comparison with scientists who are creationist). Obviously some economists will dissent but this does not detract from the fact that the vast majority of economists agree on the risks posed by Brexit.

smjm wrote: »

I don't have much time for those who deem others "ignorant".

But British voters are ignorant on immigration and the EU in general. see here
Whether or not you "have much time" for this view, it doesn't change the facts.

Lockstep

djpbarry wrote: »

Is this to be the legacy of the Leave campaign? Experts are no more expert than the rest of us? Evidence-based analysis is no better than guessing?

This is my major concern with the key argument being put forward in this thread. "But we just don't know" is an extremely weak argument and places academic experts and policy makers on equal footing with flipping a coin.

Using this logic, why not enact full frontal communism tomorrow, abolish currency and enact a wonderful golden age that would make everyone in the world happy. I mean, most of us know this won't happen or work but we just don't know, right?

Lockstep

Lockstep wrote: »

This is my major concern with the key argument being put forward in this thread. "But we just don't know" is an extremely weak argument and places academic experts and policy makers on equal footing with flipping a coin.

Using this logic, why not enact full frontal communism tomorrow, abolish currency and enact a wonderful golden age that would make everyone in the world happy. I mean, most of us know this won't happen or work but we just don't know, right?

Mother of Christ, there's a gigantic difference between saying "we don't know the long-term effects of instituting a non-market economy" and "we don't know the long-term effects of instituting some relationship with the European Union that resembles that of Switzerland".

I disagree with a previous comment that 'lies' are the biggest feature of the Brexit debate. It is unquestionably hysteria, on both sides, that has dominated the exchange.

Some lad on here earlier was saying Britain will be lucky if they get away with a 'lost decade'. This kind of rubbish.

Lockstep

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Mother of Christ, there's a gigantic difference between saying "we don't know the long-term effects of instituting a non-market economy" and "we don't know the long-term effects of instituting some relationship with the European Union that resembles that of Switzerland".

Are they? Both are just as reliant on taking a massive leap of faith against the advice of experts. Seeing as the main argument being used in this thread is "BUT WE JUST DON'T KNOW", it's a fairly valid comparison.
It's an unavoidable fact that most economists see Brexit as having a negative effect on the British economy. We can't say the exact repercussions as the Brexit side had no clear idea on what they would do afterwards. Nonetheless, the impact is currently negative which is exactly what economists predicted (as did the IMF, Treasury, OECD and so on). It might get better but this is entirely speculative with little evidence to support this prediction.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Different scenarios were obviously presented, but the UK was worse off in all of them.

It seems as though you're leaning toward the "nobody knows for sure what will happen, therefore all projections are meaningless" argument. This despite the fact that we are currently witnessing the economic shock that virtually every economic organisation predicted.

Can you post some of the compelling studies detailing the impact in 2030 you are referring to so that we know what we are talking about?

I don't think any serious economist will make 15 years economic forecasts without quoting very specific assumptions meaning they are washing their hands from any political change (which are very likely in the current situation).

Lockstep

Lockstep wrote: »

Are they? Both are just as reliant on taking a massive leap of faith against the advice of experts.

No. They are not the same.

I think people are fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the modern economist. An economist isn't the modern version of the Delphic Oracle. Perhaps I'm being unfair in assuming that your views are as dated as ancient Greece, but they certainly haven't survived the 1970s.

It is absolutely necessary to listen to low-complexity economic warnings that descrive the current economic environment, and add in variables that suggest how the current environment might respond. Linear models, these are. When economists warned of depreciation in the pound, decreased investment , and even a recession in the immediate aftermath of Brexit, they are completely justified.

What is not immediately justified, however, is skipping forward through multiple economic cyles, where you have multiple equilibria, self-fulfilling prophecies, and other phenomena that just make an accurate prediction impossible.

I'm not saying we cannot put forward reasons as to why the UK might suffer economically over the long term. But these are qualitative assessments, and most commentators are divided on the long-term future of a Brexit. There's no other choice. There are too many unknown variables, there are no econometric models which can see that far into the future.

So by all means, all of the informed commentary surrounding the immediate effects of Brexit were correct. But we can't get ahead of ourselves.

On the couple of days after Brexit, I was reading declarations on here that the UK would no longer be a major global banking centre. Just a few pages ago someone was suggesting the UK will endure a "lost decade" like Japan. And now you imply that Brexit is as uncertain as 'full frontal communism'.

It isn't.

We know for certain the long term effects on the market of demolishing the market economy.

We do not know the long term market effects of Brexit. We just don't.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

But don't you agree there executive power should be give by an EU wide election so that whoever leads your Federal government is legitimate to represent the whole population?

On the contrary, this would demand an EU wide election, same with the EP elections taking place every five years. Otherwise there would be no democratic legitimation for that state.

Sorry I don't mean to ignore your post, but when I mentioned a liability I am referring to the current situation whereby there are 27 conflicting national interests, not the federal Europe you are describing.

Yes, I got that when I was replying to you. No question and these 27 conflicting national interests would be there in a federal Europe as well. The instruments to solve those conflicting interests would be different to the current available instruments. But let´s leave it there where the realities put an end to this theory of a federal state. The 27 states have no such interest in building up this federal state for various reasons. The main reason among the many is certainly there own sovereignty.

Thomas_..

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So the next British PM will be a woman.

Theresa May 199
Andrea Leadsome 84
Michael Gove 46

9th September for the membership ballot on the remaining two.

May is already handled as "the reincarnation" of old Thatcher. Nothing good might come from that I suppose.

She´s probably just another one immitating a former politicians and in that case, one that was very much hated beyond the borders of her own country.

Curious enough, Thatcher has still more credit within the Tory Party than Churchill, at least it seems that way to me. Churchill was their WWII hero, Thatcher the worst divider of the whole society. When people take to the streets a celebrating ones death, it says much about how much the People have hated her. "Ding Dong the witch is gone", that´s what they were singing.

Some of her fellow politicians already described May as narrow minded and not being the right choice but who´s the right choice anyway.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

If in 25 years time the UK has thriving manufacturing industries in the North again, a stable economy and a full spectrum of society catered for then I think there'll be plenty of very happy people outside of London.

Well, sure - but Brexit has made that less likely, not more.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, sure - but Brexit has made that less likely, not more.

I do hate when people take sentences out of quotes which are terribly relevant to what they then write!

Deleted User wrote: »

It all depends on perspective.

If in 25 years time the UK has thriving manufacturing industries in the North again, a stable economy and a full spectrum of society catered for then I think there'll be plenty of very happy people outside of London.

The UK will not become a failed state no matter what happens, lets get real here. Even with a 10/15% reduction in GDP and an absolutely devastating 4/5 year recession the UK would be a global powerhouse with buckets of possibilities. Some argue that the UK that emerges on the other side of that might be on a better path than the one it could have become within the EU. (Short term pain, long term gain)

I don't think that that tallys, but given we have a observation size of one, we have no way to find out the answer for certain.

I agree. And said as much, but the selective quoting makes it look otherwise!

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

On the contrary, this would demand an EU wide election, same with the EP elections taking place every five years. Otherwise there would be no democratic legitimation for that state.

Why "on the contrary"? Isn't that exactly what I said?

Also to me it would need to go further than the EP election: the pool of candidates, parties, campaign themes should be EU wide if whoever is elected is to be accepted by the whole EU population as a legitimate representative (a opposed to the EP whereby MEPs are elected from national parties and only representing their citizens). But currently this is clearly unrealistic.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

If in 25 years time the UK has thriving manufacturing industries in the North again, a stable economy and a full spectrum of society catered for then I think there'll be plenty of very happy people outside of London.

If manufacturing takes off in the UK in anyway in 25 years, it will likely be almost completely automated, and the only jobs will be for the various engineers who maintain the automated factories.

People should be far more worried about losing there jobs to automation, as opposed to immigrants.

Lockstep

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No. They are not the same.

I think people are fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the modern economist. An economist isn't the modern version of the Delphic Oracle. Perhaps I'm being unfair in assuming that your views are as dated as ancient Greece, but they certainly haven't survived the 1970s.

I don't think anyone here is saying economists are infallible. At all. But when a group of experts form a consensus on something, it's a very reputable source to rely on.
Likewise, economists would surely agree that if we revert to a barter system, it'd be an economic disaster. But what if they're wrong? Which is what your logic relies on.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It is absolutely necessary to listen to low-complexity economic warnings that descrive the current economic environment, and add in variables that suggest how the current environment might respond. Linear models, these are. When economists warned of depreciation in the pound, decreased investment , and even a recession in the immediate aftermath of Brexit, they are completely justified.

What is not immediately justified, however, is skipping forward through multiple economic cyles, where you have multiple equilibria, self-fulfilling prophecies, and other phenomena that just make an accurate prediction impossible.

I'm not saying we cannot put forward reasons as to why the UK might suffer economically over the long term. But these are qualitative assessments, and most commentators are divided on the long-term future of a Brexit. There's no other choice. There are too many unknown variables, there are no econometric models which can see that far into the future.

So by all means, all of the informed commentary surrounding the immediate effects of Brexit were correct. But we can't get ahead of ourselves.

On the couple of days after Brexit, I was reading declarations on here that the UK would no longer be a major global banking centre. Just a few pages ago someone was suggesting the UK will endure a "lost decade" like Japan. And now you imply that Brexit is as uncertain as 'full frontal communism'.

It isn't.

We know for certain the long term effects on the market of demolishing the market economy.

We do not know the long term market effects of Brexit. We just don't.

This is a prime piece of Brexiter logic: "Yeah, ok, things are bad now but they MIGHT get better. We don't know in the long run!"
It's a common defence used to to justify bad economic policies but as Keynes points out

John Maynard Keynes wrote:

But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again.

Likewise, it's ignoring the demonstrated negative impact that uncertainty has on markets. Which is at the core of what Brexit offers: uncertainty.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Why "on the contrary"? Isn't that exactly what I said?

Also to me it would need to go further than the EP election: the pool of candidates, parties, campaign themes should be EU wide if whoever is elected is to be accepted by the whole EU population as a legitimate representative (a opposed to the EP whereby MEPs are elected from national parties and only representing their citizens). But currently this is clearly unrealistic.

Yes, this is where it starts to get tricky and therefore it will remain unrealistic.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

I do hate when people take sentences out of quotes which are terribly relevant to what they then write!

Welcome to the world of one sided views and posters who rewrite your posts so that they can say you are wrong ;-)

Lockstep

Lockstep wrote: »

This is a prime piece of Brexiter logic: "Yeah, ok, things are bad now but they MIGHT get better. We don't know in the long run!"

If this was your takeaway message, you've obviously skimmed through what I wrote, and jumped to the false conclusion that I think Brexit is a good thing, economically.

There should be a rule in the charter here, that when anyone gives a nuanced opinion, they have to give it twice. Because it apparently takes a second post to explain everything that doesn't fit into a black & white narrative.

(i) Brexit isn't a good thing in the short term

(ii) its long-term effects are unknown; long-term forecasts are mostly unreliable due to equilibrium shifts, the interconnected nature of the global economy, and human behaviour across multiple economic cycles

(iii) Not all long-term effects are unknowable. The future is not full of black swans. If we demolished the market economy, the long-term domestic effects (in a market world) would be obvious from the outset.

(iv) Any long-term effects of an (as yet, known) British association with the EU cannot be known. Nor, most likely, will it be known when the agreement is reached.

(iv)Long-term unknowability does not justify a decision either way; on the one hand, deviating from conservative economic policy creates uncertainty, on the other hand, being too conservative can impede economic development, or even lead to recession. In a most extreme case, the Irish Government of 2007-2011 was probably the most risk-averse government in Europe, in the context of the market certainty it tried to maintain. On the other hand, in 2008 the US Government triggered the Lehmans crisis by allowing that bank to fall, and created market uncertainty. Nevertheless, it has escaped the banking crisis relatively unscathed. It had the economic equipment which allowed it to accommodate that uncertainty.

Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions. I have an opinion that Brexit will be bad in the long-term, because I cannot see British manufacturing responding as well as it needs to. But I wouldn't put five quid on that bet, because' it's no more than a hunch. I wouldn't even spend 2 quid on a newspaper that made such a blind assertion. The long-term future is too unknowable. Like it or not, this is a judgment call, and there is very scarce availability of useful economic information.

Lockstep

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If this was your takeaway message, you've obviously skimmed through what I wrote, and jumped to the false conclusion that I think Brexit is a good thing, economically.

There should be a rule in the charter here, that when anyone gives a nuanced opinion, they have to give it twice. Because it apparently takes a second post to explain everything that doesn't fit into a black & white narrative.

Please point out where I said you think Brexit is a good thing. I said nothing of the sort.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

(i) Brexit isn't a good thing in the short term

(ii) its long-term effects are unknown; long-term forecasts are mostly unreliable due to equilibrium shifts, the interconnected nature of the global economy, and human behaviour across multiple economic cycles

(iii) Not all long-term effects are unknowable. The future is not full of black swans. If we demolished the market economy, the long-term domestic effects (in a market world) would be obvious from the outset.

(iv) Any long-term effects of an (as yet, known) British association with the EU cannot be known. Nor, most likely, will it be known when the agreement is reached.

(iv)Long-term unknowability does not justify a decision either way; on the one hand, deviating from conservative economic policy creates uncertainty, on the other hand, being too conservative can impede economic development, or even lead to recession. In a most extreme case, the Irish Government of 2007-2011 was probably the most risk-averse government in Europe, in the context of the market certainty it tried to maintain. On the other hand, in 2008 the US Government triggered the Lehmans crisis by allowing that bank to fall, and created market uncertainty. Nevertheless, it has escaped the banking crisis relatively unscathed. It had the economic equipment which allowed it to accommodate that uncertainty.

Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions. I have an opinion that Brexit will be bad in the long-term, because I cannot see British manufacturing responding as well as it needs to. But I wouldn't put five quid on that bet, because' it's no more than a hunch. I wouldn't even spend 2 quid on a newspaper that made such a blind assertion. The long-term future is too unknowable. Like it or not, this is a judgment call, and there is very scarce availability of useful economic information.

If that's your opinion/prediction, then I totally respect that as you're not making any sweeping statements. My issue is with those who disregard expert advice by endlessly repeating "but we just don't know" as if expert advice is equivalent to guesswork. Long term, anything could happen but this should not be used as a trump card against the very real negative impact of Brexit which is set to remain for the foreseeable future.

marienbad

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If this was your takeaway message, you've obviously skimmed through what I wrote, and jumped to the false conclusion that I think Brexit is a good thing, economically.

There should be a rule in the charter here, that when anyone gives a nuanced opinion, they have to give it twice. Because it apparently takes a second post to explain everything that doesn't fit into a black & white narrative.

(i) Brexit isn't a good thing in the short term

(ii) its long-term effects are unknown; long-term forecasts are mostly unreliable due to equilibrium shifts, the interconnected nature of the global economy, and human behaviour across multiple economic cycles

(iii) Not all long-term effects are unknowable. The future is not full of black swans. If we demolished the market economy, the long-term domestic effects (in a market world) would be obvious from the outset.

(iv) Any long-term effects of an (as yet, known) British association with the EU cannot be known. Nor, most likely, will it be known when the agreement is reached.

(iv)Long-term unknowability does not justify a decision either way; on the one hand, deviating from conservative economic policy creates uncertainty, on the other hand, being too conservative can impede economic development, or even lead to recession. In a most extreme case, the Irish Government of 2007-2011 was probably the most risk-averse government in Europe, in the context of the market certainty it tried to maintain. On the other hand, in 2008 the US Government triggered the Lehmans crisis by allowing that bank to fall, and created market uncertainty. Nevertheless, it has escaped the banking crisis relatively unscathed. It had the economic equipment which allowed it to accommodate that uncertainty.

Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions. I have an opinion that Brexit will be bad in the long-term, because I cannot see British manufacturing responding as well as it needs to. But I wouldn't put five quid on that bet, because' it's no more than a hunch. I wouldn't even spend 2 quid on a newspaper that made such a blind assertion. The long-term future is too unknowable. Like it or not, this is a judgment call, and there is very scarce availability of useful economic information.

Sounds a bit like Donald Rumsfield