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

[Bruce Banner]

9 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Macron is the person most likely to push us into a no deal.

He sees no deal as full of opportunity for France, potentially enabling them to take a chunk of London's finance business and preventing the UK from becoming Europe's tech superpower; something the French have been worrying about in recent years.   

The deeply unpopular Macron would do or say anything to divert attention from his humiliation at the hands of the gilets jaunes to a leader even more unpopular than himself.

[Silverfinger]

31 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Seriously, even people who voted Brexit are on en masse changing their minds.

There is another point that puzzles me: Because of the demographics, BREXIT clearly will be a temporary thing, say for 10 years or so, because by then the boomers will have fizzled out enough to shift the picture (maybe someone has the exact numers on this?). Given that we are now headed for a customs union in which the UK has no say whatsoever anyway, why bother, if the UK will be back in the EU in approx. 10 years time anyway?

[crouch]

10 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

You think wrongly.  They have already laid out what their conditions for resuming negotiations after No Deal would be, and they include agreeing to the backstop.

It's not possible to avert No Deal at a minute to midnight in that way because any deal needs ratification by parliament.

You may be right here but if we did go out with no deal there would have to be interim arrangements at the border. By the time we sit down to negotiate a deal for the future those arrangements will have bedded in (or not) and, if they have been successful, then that would make any demand for a backstop pure obstruction.

You are right about no deal so, May's deal being the only agreed deal on the table, and she saying we only need a short extension, what are the odds of Corbyn wandering into the elephant trap? Very long I'd say.

[tomandlu]

21 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Of course shows like Faulty Towers are brilliant; but they are of their time. You couldn’t make the show today.

"The Builders" is brilliant, but if anyone is still comfortable with the thicko Oirish schtick, then gawd help them...

Not to say one can't make jokes involving race - but derogatory stereotypes as a shortcut to humour need neither defending nor banning - just put out to grass.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, crouch said:

Presumably the second para refers to MFN clauses in trade agreements but what is to stop us offering better terms to all third parties, including the EU. I assume this wold be our stance anyway so would not necessarily be a restriction?

As far as losses from Brexit I wouldn't contest this because IMV short term losses were nailed on, a 100% certainty, due to the postponement of spending.

I think the whole topic of trade agreements is vastly overplayed.I have not seen a single forecast that says new/improved FTAs could offset the loss of membership of the single market, even those that make the assumption that almost overnight we get FTA's with all of our major trade partners. 

Hopefully, but some will already have been diverted elsewhere and much will depend on the final outcome of Brexit and the level of access we have to the single market.  Goldman Sachs report does say that most of the current loss could be recovered if Brexit was cancelled so that does imply postponement is the major factor. 

 

much will have ben  

[doomed]

[Riedquat]

12 hours ago, highYield said:

Computer model guesses into what theoretically might have economically happened in a parallel no-Brexit alternative universe are not facts.

Models aren't entirely useless ("It'll take an hour to do a 60 mile journey at 60 mph" is a model predicting where you'll be in the future) although I remain to be convinced about most economic ones, they appear to always rely on nothing significant ever happening and everything working as expected.

In any case I'm still on a big yawn about the whole 2.5% thing. Even if it could be demonstrated to be accurate my ability to give a damn about it is negligable. It's not even a loss (and for the benefit of those in need of a dictionary, no, a lower rate of gain is not a loss) and I wouldn't be too bothered about a loss unless it gets very large.

[zugzwang]

49 minutes ago, highYield said:

Are rabbitts lethal (much bigger?) alternative universe versions of our rabbits? 

The alternate universe computer models are guessing 'only' a 2.5% difference, inside the possible margin of error for a model that tries to replicate the entire economy. The BoE inflation fan chart models often ended up more than 100% out in their guesses, and are probably a component of the BoE whole economy model. Some of the alternate universe models guess around the same amount, but that's due to the models having common sources and the clustering effect of economic models - all the RMBS models also did so.

I'm not saying that Brexit won't have a short-medium term negative economic effect. I'm saying that it's daft to describe the output of economic models as facts.

There are only two falsifiable models in economics/finance: Black-Scholes option pricing theory and ratex DSGE. Both have been falsified.

Errors associated with these models are unquantifiable.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, Silverfinger said:

There is another point that puzzles me: Because of the demographics, BREXIT clearly will be a temporary thing, say for 10 years or so, because by then the boomers will have fizzled out enough to shift the picture (maybe someone has the exact numers on this?). Given that we are now headed for a customs union in which the UK has no say whatsoever anyway, why bother, if the UK will be back in the EU in approx. 10 years time anyway?

That's the generation who wanted to be in the EU in the 70s. The demographic question keeps getting brought up and doesn't take into account that people change their minds.

[Riedquat]

45 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

"The Builders" is brilliant, but if anyone is still comfortable with the thicko Oirish schtick, then gawd help them...

Not to say one can't make jokes involving race - but derogatory stereotypes as a shortcut to humour need neither defending nor banning - just put out to grass.

You'd have the character of Manuel removed if you're that bothered by it.

[tomandlu]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You'd have the character of Manuel removed if you're that bothered by it.

I'm not aware of any stereotype where the Spanish are dismissed as chronically thick.

[doomed]

53 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

"The Builders" is brilliant, but if anyone is still comfortable with the thicko Oirish schtick, then gawd help them...

Not to say one can't make jokes involving race - but derogatory stereotypes as a shortcut to humour need neither defending nor banning - just put out to grass.

Englishman, Scotsman and Irishman are all working on a construction site, building a new skyscraper in London. It's lunchtime and they're all sat atop the building. Englishman opens up his lunchbox to see what his wife has packed him.

"Ugh... Ham and cheese sandwich... again. I'm sick of ham and cheese sandwiches, it's the same every bloody day. If I get another ham and cheese sandwich in my lunch box tomorrow I'm jumping off the top of this building."

Next, the Scotsman opens up his lunch box.

"Aackk, jam sandwich... again. I cannee go on like this eating jam sandwiches every day of me life! If I get the same again tomorrow I'm jumping as well."

Next it's the Irishman's turn.

"Ohh for fecks sake! Not another egg and cress sandwich! That's the fourth one in a row this week! I'm with you boys, one more egg and cress sandwich and I'm jumping!"

So next day they sit at the top of the building to have lunch. One by one they open up their lunch boxes... Englishman finds another ham and cheese sandwich, so off he jumps, and splats into the ground below. Scotsman finds another jam sandwich... Off he goes...Splat. Irishman, egg and cress sandwich... Splat.

A week or so later later the three widows are talking at the memorial service. English widow says, through tears, "I still can't believe it, had no idea George hated ham and cheese so much, if only i'd known..."

Scottish widow says "Duncan did say he was getting a bit bored of Jam, but I didn't realise he hated it that much, I just wish he'd have let me know how he really felt."

Irish widow says "I... I just don't understand... Paddy packed his own lunch."

[crouch]

21 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I think the whole topic of trade agreements is vastly overplayed.I have not seen a single forecast that says new/improved FTAs could offset the loss of membership of the single market, even those that make the assumption that almost overnight we get FTA's with all of our major trade partners. 

The problem with this is that it begs the question. The SM and the CU present an outside face to the ROW and it is changing that stance that is the issue. Membership of the EU does restrict how you relate to the ROW and that will change (hopefully) so the loss of access to the SM is certainly a factor but whether it is an overwhelmingly important factor remains to be seen; it depends how trade unfolds with ROW. The dynamics of this are very difficult to foresee, certainly over the long term, so a definitive judgement on this cannot be made. As I've posted before on entry to the EEC the government made no long term economic forecasts because they said, quite rightly in my view, that the actual economic outcome depended on how firms and individuals related to the changed circumstances.

[crouch]

21 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

There are only two falsifiable models in economics/finance: Black-Scholes option pricing theory and ratex DSGE. Both have been falsified.

Errors associated with these models are unquantifiable.

Didn't LTCM fail because they were using Black/Scholes? In fact didn't they have one of the two on their board?

[Riedquat]

5 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

I'm not aware of any stereotype where the Spanish are dismissed as chronically thick.

All a stereotype is is a characteristic that's been frequently used before. You can use any characteristic just as long as it's not one used before?

Father Dougal is stupid and Irish, is Father Ted unacceptable these days?

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, highYield said:

Are rabbitts lethal (much bigger?) alternative universe versions of our rabbits? 

The alternate universe computer models are guessing 'only' a 2.5% difference, inside the possible margin of error for a model that tries to replicate the entire economy. The BoE inflation fan chart models often ended up more than 100% out in their guesses, and are probably a component of the BoE whole economy model. Some of the alternate universe models guess around the same amount, but that's due to the models having common sources and the clustering effect of economic models - all the RMBS models also did so.

I'm not saying that Brexit won't have a short-medium term negative economic effect. I'm saying that it's daft to describe the output of economic models as facts.

Nobody thinks they are facts but in the absence of anything else they are the best basis we have for planning and decision making.

However, the lost 2.5% of GDP is as close as you will get to a fact in modeling.  As far as I can see nobody is arguing it is not real, it is possible that some of the loss is the natural variation you get because no doppelganger is perfect and there are always timing/lag issues with any snapshot figure, but it's equally possible that it is understating the true figure.  

 

   

[kzb]

2 hours ago, highYield said:

Are rabbitts lethal (much bigger?) alternative universe versions of our rabbits? 

The alternate universe computer models are guessing 'only' a 2.5% difference, inside the possible margin of error for a model that tries to replicate the entire economy. The BoE inflation fan chart models often ended up more than 100% out in their guesses, and are probably a component of the BoE whole economy model. Some of the alternate universe models guess around the same amount, but that's due to the models having common sources and the clustering effect of economic models - all the RMBS models also did so.

I'm not saying that Brexit won't have a short-medium term negative economic effect. I'm saying that it's daft to describe the output of economic models as facts.

I don't recall these bodies producing model outputs on the economic consequences of electing a Labour government or a Tory government either.

This is the first time that state funded organisations have published such results.  Perhaps we can look forward to this with every general election going forward?

[doomed]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

I don't recall these bodies producing model outputs on the economic consequences of electing a Labour government or a Tory government either.

This is the first time that state funded organisations have published such results.  Perhaps we can look forward to this with every general election going forward?

It is all fear mongering to try to get the public on board with not leaving. The latest YouGov poll  shows that they're not buying it.

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Nobody thinks they are facts but in the absence of anything else they are the best basis we have for planning and decision making.

However, the lost 2.5% of GDP is as close as you will get to a fact in modeling.  As far as I can see nobody is arguing it is not real, it is possible that some of the loss is the natural variation you get because no doppelganger is perfect and there are always timing/lag issues with any snapshot figure, but it's equally possible that it is understating the true figure. 

And if that's still nowhere close to a fact then there's not much point in getting worked up about it. What is the typical accuracy of these models? If they're wildly inaccurate then they aren't any sort of basis for planning at all and decision making and just a smokescreen for the planners. If they're slightly better than that but still very inaccurate (including the possibility of being completely wrong) then they may be the best to plan to (and require a large degree of acceptance that reality will impact the plans) but still aren't any basis for saying "you're wrong" later on.

[zugzwang]

2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Models aren't entirely useless ("It'll take an hour to do a 60 mile journey at 60 mph" is a model predicting where you'll be in the future) although I remain to be convinced about most economic ones, they appear to always rely on nothing significant ever happening and everything working as expected.

The example you cite is a mathematical law of Nature, universally correct within its domain. Nature obeys inviolable mathematical laws only because those laws are grounded in local invariance principles, in this case the conservative gravitational field which makes Newtonian mechanics comprehensible. In economics money is created and destroyed on a seemingly random basis, and economic behaviour is subject to constant upheaval through the emergence of new technologies; almost nothing is conserved. Instead of mathematical laws we have humanly invented laws - legislated law, dictatorial edict, contract law or the rule of tradition - which can always be violated.

[hurlerontheditch]

2 minutes ago, doomed said:

It is all fear mongering to try to get the public on board with not leaving. The latest YouGov poll  shows that they're not buying it.

i fear the public do not have a clue how international trade agreements work or how it will affect them

[jonb2]

48 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I think the whole topic of trade agreements is vastly overplayed.I have not seen a single forecast that says new/improved FTAs could offset the loss of membership of the single market, even those that make the assumption that almost overnight we get FTA's with all of our major trade partners. 

Hopefully, but some will already have been diverted elsewhere and much will depend on the final outcome of Brexit and the level of access we have to the single market.  Goldman Sachs report does say that most of the current loss could be recovered if Brexit was cancelled so that does imply postponement is the major factor. 

 

much will have ben  

Exactly. Money for the very few. Maggot greed again.

The motives for important new trade agreements with places like Tonga are by the few that know they can fill their pockets 'enabling' each deal.

Just look at all the secrecy behind some of these when 'negotiating' with the USA.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/12/20/brexit-trade-deal-liam-fox-us-uk/

Cockroaches and maggots.

[Confusion of VIs]

42 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's the generation who wanted to be in the EU in the 70s. The demographic question keeps getting brought up and doesn't take into account that people change their minds.

Curtis looked into this in detail and found that there was no evidence of people changing their minds as they get older and that there was a significant demographic drift to Remain, as a result of older mainly Brexit voters being replaced by new mainly Remain voters.

Whether people change their minds because Brexit is going better/worse than they expected is a separate issue.  

Edited April 3, 2019 by Confusion of VIs

[zugzwang]

13 minutes ago, crouch said:

Didn't LTCM fail because they were using Black/Scholes? In fact didn't they have one of the two on their board?

Yes, Scholes was a partner. As was Robert Merton who shared the Nobel prize with Scholes. Fischer Black died in 1996.

To their credit, in the last year of LTCM both sought to lower the fund's risk exposure and but they were over-ruled by the hot-headed traders.

[jonb2]

40 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You'd have the character of Manuel removed if you're that bothered by it.

Not with a hard Brexit.

It would be law to have European dim stereotypes in every new comedy. Part of back to the 70s authenticity.