Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

crouch

Members
  • Posts

    5,992
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by crouch

  1. I bought one in 2003 off Ebay that I believe is genuine. I have the original box with the original cardboard sleeve (ie even with the wrapping), the seals and the registration.
  2. Have you heard of the principle of Relative Deprivation? Look it up. John Galt the most boring, pompous and self righteousness charcter in fiction. I don't have a level of credulity; if I had I would actully believe all those economic forecasts that show how Brexit must be a failure and can be nothing else.
  3. No but not only can you not see this, you cannot even admit the possibility. In your terms Brexit might indeed "not work"; GDP will be less than if we were in the EU but you simply cannot admit that it can be other than a minor disaster. You would have invested in the SSB.
  4. The structure of economies changes over time; that is natural. Will this change with Brexit? I doubt it.
  5. We're both making educated guesses; my poblem is that I've always known they were guesses whereas most Remainers wil not acknowledge this.
  6. FOM does not enable coutries to control their borders in the long term. Short term influxes may be reversed a few years later causing ebb anf flow conditions which do not allow time for social integration but merely disruption. Most do not have an unwritten constitution or the same notion of parliamentary sovereignty and therefore the loss of law making powers is much greater in the UK. In the UK it was probably the Factortame case which showed just how great this loss had been, being underestimated by many of those who thought membership of the EEC was a good thing. It effectively interposed the courts as the arbiter in any conflict between UK and EU law and, in this respect, was a significant transfer of power which undermined the very notion of parliamentary soverignty, a crucial, indeed perhaps, the crucial principle of the British constitution.
  7. FOM does not enable coutries to control their borders in the long term. Short term influxes may be reversed a few years later causing ebb anf flow conditions which do not allow time for social integration but merely disruption. Most do not have an unwritten constitution or the same notion of parliamentary sovereignty and therefore the loss of law making powers is much greater in the UK. In the UK it was probably the Factortame case which showed just how great this loss had been, being underestimated by many of those who thought membership of the EEC was a good thing. It effectively interposed the courts as the arbiter in any conflict between UK and EU law and, in this respect, was a significant transfer of power which undermined the very notion of parliamentary soverignty, a crucial, indeed perhaps, the crucial principle of the British constitution.
  8. I don't recall ever having said it did; the subect has usually been the viabiliy of the UK not the necessity of the EU.
  9. By this you appear to suggest that Brexit is a policy for reducing trade; where do you get this from? Trade as a trend based on proportion is important because this, as you say, is a slow burn issue and one already established; UK trade is, and has been, moving away from the EU. Many if not most of the predictions assume a permanent and significant loss of trade to the EU. This is an assumption and it may be right or wrong.
  10. I see FOM as an issue, not as a number but in terms of ebb and flow and the difficulties of social absorption. I don't particularly expect immigration to reduce in following years but I do expect better control of borders. For a country with no written constitution and a commitment to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty membership of the EU and the supremacy of EU law was, perhaps, always a compromise too far.
  11. Reduced trade doesn't help us but that is - an assumption. Again this is largely assumption. Trade has been edging away from the EU for a fair number of years already and this trend is fairly well established.
  12. The general tenor of difficulty seems to mainly concern LPF and fisheries. With regard to fisheries it may be that Johnson took his pledges to the fishing communities seriously and wants to avoid selling them out. Who knows? Maybe some politicians aren't 100% dishonest and are serious about implementing manifesto pledges. As to LPF this was always going to be a problem - clearly signalled in the PD.
  13. The FDI point is well taken but FDI is one issue. The problem with all these things is that you have to make assumptions and those assumptions may turn out to be quite wrong. You make this huge assumption as did the authors in your final sentence. What may be required on this is to bring a long tail industry in terms of productivity up to a more robust short tail profile by dissemination of existing techniques.
  14. Whether it would be different as you - cynically imply it won't - remains to be seen.
  15. Yes, but none of this excludes the possibility - IMV probability - of a short term compromise to keep trade flows going; it's in the mutual interests of the parties.
  16. I wasn't talking about fishing alone. And "Especially given no deal will destroy that segment of the economy." is assumption not fact.
  17. I think you underrate this issue. See this: http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp483revised.pdf Most of the reports you mention are based on the incremental shifts in trade.Most assume one thing that is obvious and one thing that is not so obvious. That the losses of trade with the EU will be both substantial and permanent. This is the obvious one obvious one which would, if true, reduce GDP year on year. The question is: is it true? and there is no way of determining that. The second is that the loss of trade has a substantial effect on productivity, which again produces another knock on effect to GDP. The problem is that there is no evidence for this in econometric studies, and this is important because I believe losses to productivity amount to half the total losses from Brexit, losses which may be totally speculative. If you asked fifty physicists to calculate the short term path of a planet I'm pretty sure you would get very close to a single answer. Would you get the same if fifty economists calculated GDP in a years time?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.