Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, crouch said:

Of course the report refers to the frictional difficulties of no deal and there is no doubt that this is a warning that should be taken very seriously.

However, the poster has implied that this is a downside of Brexit generally when it is not; it is frictional difficulty of a no deal scenario.

Brexit means the CAP is dustbinned and we are free of the costs of the CAP, mostly in terms of higher food prices which impact on the poorest the most. Brexit will enable us to import food at World prices and selectively subsidise agricultural sectors for strategic or social reasons. 

This will be a substantial benefit but may well see more businesses withe a European orientation go out of business as a result.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9562 

See the above link....it's not at all clear that food prices will decrease as a result of Brexit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, crouch said:

If it was an unknown factor how do you know it has left no trace? Again you're making assumptions.

Also and as I have said before the researchers themselves cannot ascribe all the effect to Brexit; they are assuming it. Their words not mine. Counterfactuals imply assumptions and where you have assumptions you have potential error.

I don't know if the figures they quote are ascribable to Brexit and neither do they by their own admission. And neither do you.

But many other forecasters have carried out an analysis of the relative weakness of the UK economy in the 24 months after the vote to leave the EU and concluded that as a consequence we lost between 1.5 and 2.5% of GDP and real incomes were between 3 and 5% lower. 

In the absence of any other candidates to explain this, i am prepared to believe that there is no mystery and that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Brexit was responsible. 

Quite why you bother arguing this pointless point is altogether more mysterious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

And that's a very convenient position for you. Anything that can't be potentially nailed down with a fixed measurement you can dismiss as undefined and unacceptable, and once again you end up saying "only measurable economic considerations matter." No-one's claiming they don't matter but it's a big mistake to fixate on them mattering 100% to the exclusion of all else.

By measurable standards I made a big mistake moving to where I currently live. More time and money spent on commuting - higher living costs. There is no measurable benefit that I could define to your satisfaction that would say it was the right move, but it was simply because I'm rather happier for it. Different people, different surroundings, different atmosphere, different aesthetics - they've all proved more beneficial than the monetary cost but you can't measure or define them other than to say that's what they are.

You need to read what I said again. I am asking what trade off are we making for the economic impact of Brexit..... can you define what the benefits will be that we have exchanged for this?

It's a simple question. We will pay a price in terms of economic impact....so what is the real and tangible upside? I does not have to be money...but at the end of the day when people start to question the logic of Brexit and want to see what they have got for their money (or loss of it)...isn't it a good idea to tell them what they have got in exchange?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crouch said:

Many things are not clear.

What is clear is that the benefits we are trading off for the real and tangible economic losses due to Brexit are elusive, undefinable, not measurable etc etc ;)

It's almost as if they don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

You need to read what I said again. I am asking what trade off are we making for the economic impact of Brexit..... can you define what the benefits will be that we have exchanged for this?

It's a simple question. We will pay a price in terms of economic impact....so what is the real and tangible upside? I does not have to be money...but at the end of the day when people start to question the logic of Brexit and want to see what they have got for their money (or loss of it)...isn't it a good idea to tell them what they have got in exchange?

I know that's what you're asking, which is why my reply was explaining why you're not necessarily asking the right questions. People have pointed them out, a multitude of times, yet you continue to dismiss them because they're not "real and tangible." The point is that they don't have to be but that does not make them any less meaningful for the people they matter to. They may not matter to you and therefore Brexit is not right for you. They matter to other people, and therefore it is right for them. But what isn't right is saying "it has to meet my criteria otherwise it's wrong for everyone." You simply cannot tell people that they are wrong to value whatever they value, whether it's tangible or not.

Quote

What is clear is that the benefits we are trading off for the real and tangible economic losses due to Brexit are elusive, undefinable, not measurable etc etc ;)

It's almost as if they don't exist.

Love, friendship, the joy from music, art, beautiful surroundings - they're all examples of intangible, non-measurable things that are very worthwhile for lots of people. Do you dismiss those so easily and say they don't exist because you can't measure them too? Is anyone who chooses some of them over more money automatically a fool? It would be an empty existence indeed if only those things that we can easily see and measure objectively mattered!

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

But many other forecasters have carried out an analysis of the relative weakness of the UK economy in the 24 months after the vote to leave the EU and concluded that as a consequence we lost between 1.5 and 2.5% of GDP and real incomes were between 3 and 5% lower. 

In the absence of any other candidates to explain this, i am prepared to believe that there is no mystery and that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Brexit was responsible. 

Quite why you bother arguing this pointless point is altogether more mysterious.

Do you read the Sunday Times? I don't any longer but some years ago in January they use to ask around 20 bodies to do forecasts (or the forecasts were public) of things like GDP growth; inflation and unemployment. At beginning of the next year they checked to see how they'd done. One or two were quite near but the majority were out quite significantly, some spectacularly so.

If the techniques were so good why would the forecasts themselves vary so much - because they did; and why were most so wrong when compared to the actual outcome?

As you say it is indeed pointless arguing this point.

Edited by crouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

What is clear is that the benefits we are trading off for the real and tangible economic losses due to Brexit are elusive, undefinable, not measurable etc etc ;)

It's almost as if they don't exist.

See Riedquat's post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Do you believe every bit of anti-EU disingenuous and simplistic propaganda you can find.  

Surely after all your time spent on here you have must come across the actual facts, so why do you post such intelligence insulting propaganda. 

No this thread is very light on facts which is why I post stuff like this for debate.

So is it 70 or 36?  I honestly don't know.  Who is lying, the EU or Facts4EU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I know that's what you're asking, which is why my reply was explaining why you're not necessarily asking the right questions. People have pointed them out, a multitude of times, yet you continue to dismiss them because they're not "real and tangible." The point is that they don't have to be but that does not make them any less meaningful for the people they matter to. They may not matter to you and therefore Brexit is not right for you. They matter to other people, and therefore it is right for them. But what isn't right is saying "it has to meet my criteria otherwise it's wrong for everyone." You simply cannot tell people that they are wrong to value whatever they value, whether it's tangible or not.

Love, friendship, the joy from music, art, beautiful surroundings - they're all examples of intangible, non-measurable things that are very worthwhile for lots of people. Do you dismiss those so easily and say they don't exist because you can't measure them too? Is anyone who chooses some of them over more money automatically a fool? It would be an empty existence indeed if only those things that we can easily see and measure objectively mattered!

You seem able to identify none tangible things......as you have done above...can you do similarly with Brexit please?

I will repeat...when people have suffered a losss of income or their jobs....they will be asking what they have received in turn.  Will they get more love, friendship or what?

I have never heard anyone going around before the Brexit referendum say that they are suffering from a lack of sovereignty... or too much sovereignty...so how about you give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, crouch said:

Do you read the Sunday Times? I don't any longer but some years ago in January they use to ask around 20 bodies to do forecasts (or the forecasts were public) of things like GDP growth; inflation and unemployment. At beginning of the next year they checked to see how they'd done. One or two were quite near but the majority were out quite significantly, some spectacularly so.

If the techniques were so good why would the forecasts themselves vary so much - because they did; and why were most so wrong when compared to the actual outcome?

As you say it is indeed pointless arguing this point.

It's also possible to validate computer models (or not) by back-forecasting.  Strangely, you never hear about that in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

You seem able to identify none tangible things......as you have done above...can you do similarly with Brexit please?

I will repeat...when people have suffered a losss of income or their jobs....they will be asking what they have received in turn.  Will they get more love, friendship or what?

I have never heard anyone going around before the Brexit referendum say that they are suffering from a lack of sovereignty... or too much sovereignty...so how about you give it a go.

Take South Africa. Suppose in 1994 shortly before apartheid ended the government said to the people: we 've had some studies carried out and we believe that the lifting of apartheid will mean a significant loss of prosperity over the years to the nation. Let us suppose that the analysis was done abroad and was disinterested and that we do indeed know the future so the loss of prosperity is certain, beyond any dispute.

As a result of this the government said that we will put the choice whether or not to end apartheid to the people in a plebiscite.

How do you think black Africa would have voted?

Edited by crouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

...Dr Fox is doing a great job. 

#wecandothis

Oxymoron. 🤐 That's just mental.
..

image.png.e727edeae820c676633a39e387466d80.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny though 😉😁.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

But many other forecasters have carried out an analysis of the relative weakness of the UK economy in the 24 months after the vote to leave the EU and concluded that as a consequence we lost between 1.5 and 2.5% of GDP and real incomes were between 3 and 5% lower. 

In the absence of any other candidates to explain this, i am prepared to believe that there is no mystery and that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Brexit was responsible. 

Quite why you bother arguing this pointless point is altogether more mysterious.

Diesel is responsible it's all fault of diesel cars /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, crouch said:

Take South Africa. Suppose in 1994 shortly before apartheid ended the government said to the people: we 've had some studies carried out an we believe that the lifting of apartheid will mean a significant loss of prosperity over the years to the nation. Let us suppose that the analysis was done abroad and was disinterested and that we do indeed know the future so the loss of prosperity is certain, beyond any dispute.

As a result of this the government said that we will put the choice whether or not to end apartheid to the people in a plebiscite.

How do you think black Africa would have voted?

Nice analogy... but not actually directly comparable. However it's a start and we can work with that. 

You are referring to the 'freedoms' gained being greater than the economic loss. You seem to be saying that we will notice these freedoms in everyday life, I can see how Black South Africans would have seen an immediate and tangible benefit...... but I can't see how this translates into the life of your everyday Joe Bloggs here in the UK.

Edited by IMHAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IMHAL said:

Nice analogy... but not actually directly comparable. However it's a start and we can work with that. 

You are referring to the 'freedoms' gained being greater than the economic loss. You seem to be saying that we will notice these freedoms in everyday life (I can see how Black South Africans would have seen an immediate and tangible benefit)...... but I can't see how this translates into the life of your everyday Joe Bloggs here in the UK.

How would black Africans have voted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

 

The same combination of disgusted philistinism, financial illiteracy and jingo f*ckwittery we see on display every week in the Question Time audience.

Awww c'mon...you're not seriously suggesting that informed intelligence is preferable to a Daily Mail subscription, a Union flag hat and a loud voice are you?

Now I really have heard everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, crouch said:

How would black Africans have voted?

If I was a second class citizen then I would vote to become a first class citizen......so that I would be entitled to the same benefits as everyone else.

But we not are second class citizens as part of the EU....as I said, the example is not directly comparable. However, we do seem to have voted for a reduction of our benefits, economically at least........ I guess that makes us.............. rather special :wacko:

Now, back to the benefits of Brexit.... what are they? Do you need some help?

Edited by IMHAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

If I was a second class citizen then I would vote to become a first class citizen......so that I would be entitled to the same benefits as everyone else.

But we not are second class citizens as part of the EU....as I said, the example is not directly comparable. However, we do seem to have voted for a reduction of our benefits, economically at least........ I guess that makes us.............. rather special :wacko:

Now, back to the benefits of Brexit.... what are they? Do you need some help?

Clearly the analogy is completely lost on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

I know that's what you're asking, which is why my reply was explaining why you're not necessarily asking the right questions. People have pointed them out, a multitude of times, yet you continue to dismiss them because they're not "real and tangible." The point is that they don't have to be but that does not make them any less meaningful for the people they matter to. They may not matter to you and therefore Brexit is not right for you. They matter to other people, and therefore it is right for them. But what isn't right is saying "it has to meet my criteria otherwise it's wrong for everyone." You simply cannot tell people that they are wrong to value whatever they value, whether it's tangible or not.

Love, friendship, the joy from music, art, beautiful surroundings - they're all examples of intangible, non-measurable things that are very worthwhile for lots of people. Do you dismiss those so easily and say they don't exist because you can't measure them too? Is anyone who chooses some of them over more money automatically a fool? It would be an empty existence indeed if only those things that we can easily see and measure objectively mattered!

The problem is leavers are dragging the whole country down with your intangible feelings.Nobody, except the ERG and a few others are spared. You would expect, at the very least, for somebody, somewhere to have a list of benefits. Jesus taught peace and to love your fellow man, Buddha humbled himself and taught serenity within, even the Hindus' have Elephants and other exotic deities.

Brexit has nothing. You cannot sell it to non-believers. This is not good if you need to expand a cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

 

Brexit has nothing. You cannot sell it to non-believers. This is not good if you need to expand a cult.

If Brexit means an end to FOM we will see lower rents and higher wages...That will do nicely thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wayward said:

If Brexit means an end to FOM we will see lower rents and higher wages...That will do nicely thank you. 

Except immigration went up with white highly skilled Europeans being replaced by brown low skilled Asians, 100000 from China and India alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   325 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.