UKH

I wonder whether the more militant members of the Remain camp will now admit that, in part at least, they called it wrong? The UK economy didn't fall off a cliff edge, neither immediately after the referendum, nor during the uncertainty surrounding the recent talks. Unemployment is currently at a 42-year low, and growth has been marked upward, while inflation looks to have peaked (I know there are many other indicators that are less healthy - notably productivity - but that had flatlined long before Brexit came over the hill). Also, despite her many failings, and those of her team, the Prime Minister has got a deal - it is not one the militant Leavers would like, nor probably is it much to the liking of either the EU negotiators (that wanted a much higher price for divorce, for example) , or those who wish for the status quo ante. But isn't that what we call consensus politics? Might it now be possible to have a less shrill debate about how we ( both the EU and the UK) make the best of the situation we are in, rather than hurling abuse at one another from rival ideological redoubts? The response to this will provide some measure.

In reply to john yates:

I’d say we called it right. Whats happened is reality has forced the U.K. to (very provisionally)accept a soft Brexit, which was what most remainers were asking for once the vote took place. We aren’t there yet of course, it could still all fall apart and the loons get the upper hand again, so ask in say 3 years.

Regarding tone of debate, no, I’m not going to be timid and polite towards those wanting to destroy my country out of a combination of zealotry, ignorance and xenophobia.

In reply to john yates:
(I admit to being a disliker, (probably the 1st of many...) but will also put a response).

Whilst I agree (in part) to what you say in regards to there being some overly negative forecasts produced for the short term, I would say that they have no need to apologies for anything until members of the leave campaign apologise for having suggested that all would be perfect, the EU can 'go whistle' and that the EU revolves around the UK (okay no source for that but certain politicians may have well have said it).
In regards to long term forecasts then I refer to MG's post above.

Although the first thing they can apologise for is the Leave campaign bus . After all, for some that was a reason for voting leave.

In reply to john yates:

So many levels of wrong I'm not sure where to begin. The word premature springs to mind, the real negotiations haven't even started yet and they've already come close to breaking down completely only to be scraped back off the ground. The real danger is our negotiating team seem to be under the same misguided view that we hold all the cards. Why not put judgement on hold for now? At least until the negotiations have started in earnest instead of claiming a rule Britania victory while we're still humiliatingly wiping egg off our faces after the first spat.

In reply to john yates:

We tumbled down the first tier of cliff immediately after the vote, pretty much as predicted. The size of the rest of the cliff will depend on the deal; the harder the Brexit, the bigger the cliff. Did you notice how this week's positive news magically coincides with May's settling on a likely soft Brexit? The softer the Brexit, the smaller the cliff, and if we end up with free movement and customs union we may even climb part way back up the cliff we already fell down.

In reply to john yates:

We're still in the EU.

In reply to john yates:

Right, we did not fall off a cliff edge. But what worries me is that we are sailing away on the Titanic

In reply to john yates:

I don’t think something that didn’t need to happen not being as shit as it could’ve been is a cause for great celebration. And we don’t yet know the full ramifications. I’m concerned about my daughter’s emergence onto the jobs’ market in about 7 years’ time.

In reply to john arran:


Fell down for no good reason whatsoever...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


We had good reason - we were reaching out to grab the £350bn/day* that was going to save the NHS.

(*Other figures may be available, but still not realistic)

In reply to john yates:

We fiercely defend democracy in this country, always have and this is one in the eye for the unelected bureaucrats on the continent. Like World War II it won’t be an easy ride, many of us will die as essential services deteriorate (many have already died I believe) but Johnny Foreigner and his globalising tendencies can go whistle. This is a local country, for local people.

Etc..

In reply to john yates:

No she hasn't.
After coming to an agreement with Eire, but then being forced by the DUP (who would otherwise have removed her from power) to change the conditions, she has agreed to basically keep in place all the current EU trade rules (whilst losing any input into drafting or amending those rules), and that has won her a place at the table to discuss with the EU whether or not a 'deal' might be possible.

In reply to john yates:

I think it's still *way* too early to say there have been no detrimental consequences to the Brexit vote. See where we're sitting in 5 -10 years time and see if you still think everything is peachy.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:



On the plus side, the way we've rolled over in the negotiations it's starting to look like we might avoid the cliff edge by staying in the EU in all but name (and influence). If that did happen, the EU should become a much more stable place than it's been with us in there constantly hindering progress and demanding exceptions. It could end up working out pretty much in everyone's interests, except those who want Britain to run things.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

But of course no MP/Politico could guarantee that would happen and I'm not sure the remainers in government offices said "We promise we'll spend the money we save on our NHS". Not that they always keep such promises anyway!

In reply to john yates:

I wouldn't have expected so from the Mirror, but this is really rather good: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/7-stages-brexit-denial-finally-116607...

In reply to john arran:

It would be interesting to see if anyone could refute a single word of that.

In reply to broken spectre:



It's depressing that I genuinely thought this was genuine at first, such is the level of debate and discourse in the UK now...

In reply to john yates:
The idea that we were going to fall off a cliff edge is as pernicious and plain wrong as the idea that all we remainers thought the EU was perfect.

Nothing has actually happened yet, we're still in the EU so we still have Romanians harvesting our crops, thank God, and lorries can come and go through the various ports without let or hindrance - apart, of course, from the cooperation of the French checking for illegal immigrants at Calais. And to coin a phrase, the EU is probably the most imperfect democratic, supra-national, political, social and economic unit that has ever existed apart from any other than has ever been attempted.

Let's review all this in 18 months when those harvesting jobs haven't been filled by newly empowered and energised NEATS from Merthyr Tydfil, when the NHS is under pressure as never before because all those EU staff who are no longer welcome or even able to work here without some byzantine bureaucracy are replaced by agency staff from the Philippines, and when the lorries waiting at ports for clearance through as yet unknown regulations back up from Dover to the M25, from Calais to Paris, from Belfast to Dublin (being pillaged by the IRA and UDF as they wait.)

In reply to john arran:

Wow

In reply to john arran:

Really good.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Not sure that's true - lots of disaster capitalists will have made a pile on the pound falling and rising. I wonder how many of those had any inside information on the talks.

I happen to know that some people were specifically and privately advised not to complete property deals until the pound had fallen out of the ERM

In reply to john yates:

What are you smoking?

In reply to john yates:
You're obviously a glass half full kind of person. The leave side did get some economic predictions wrong in terms of timing - whether they were wrong in terms of magnitude remains to be seen. I guess they didn't factor the big increase in consumer credit that kept the economy going (akin to putting a 5th bullet in the gun you're about to play Russian Roulette with) the interest rate cut and £180Bn of QE.

Despite these we're worse off - the economy by some £20-30 Bn, and individually. Employment continues to be high, but wages stagnate - probably for 10 more years and productivity is dismal. Though the latter is nothing to do with Brexit, it's inconceivable that it will make things better. And all this is just down to sentiment, as we haven't even left yet.

It appears that like the poor old frog in cold water, being slowly heated up, the British electorate won't notice they're screwed until it's too late.

As for the recent 'deal' - I hope it holds, but don't count on it. It means a soft Brexit and already the cracks in Conservative unity are appearing. The mere fact that it won't exactly please anyone, leave or remain, Farage hates it, as do the hardline Brexiteers indicates to me that it is probably the best compromise.

In reply to George Ormerod:
Well thanks all for the vitriol and abuse. Clearly UKC is not the place for well argued debate. I don’t smoke. Am not a leaver. But when the Daily Mirror is cited as evidence it’s clear that this is a seriously low brow hangout. Ivan Rogers recent speech, now an article in Prospect gets to some of the complexity. But reading that takes effort. The Mirror is just for staring into and catching your reflection.

In reply to john yates:

1. We haven't left yet
2. For example, capital investment in car manufacturing lines has fallen 60% - the high tech companies supplying automation equipment are going to go bust as a result of Brexit
3. The employment figures are flattered by zero hours/similar and low-pay jobs
4. growth forecats now marked down and below EU averages.
5. £40bn is over *five years* of the entire net (after rebate) reduction in membership fees (£150m/week)

In reply to john yates:


Was there? Please point it up. Sure, people didn't agree with you, but that's different.


But also some perfectly good points made. I'm sure people will apologise for not meeting your high brow standards. Read it all again - you sound like the worst example of what you're accusing others of.

I guess the issue with it as a discusison topic at all, is that both sides see the issues as blindlingly obvious and can't understand why anyone rational would hold a different view,

In reply to john yates:


Where? Other, than perhaps your sneering about low brow and complexity.

In reply to john yates:

"Well thanks all for the vitriol and abuse." Give a single example on this thread.

"Ivan Rogers recent speech, now an article in Prospect gets to some of the complexity. " Could you give a link? That would be helpful.

"But reading that takes effort." Somehow I've managed to clock up a few qualifications here and there so certainly used to be able to manage that.

"The Mirror is just for staring into and catching your reflection. " And as I said earlier, feel free to refute a single line.

In reply to john yates:

Sorry, I completely agree with you. Am I intelligent now?

In reply to john yates:

Dislike..
Ok, we didn't fall off (that was a prediction of essentially one individual - unfortunate in that enabled Brexiters to spuriously claim that Remain told as many lies as they had)...we're sliding off, desperately clutching at tussocks of grass which seem to keep giving way....

The current move seems fantastic... the worst of all worlds.....

Perhaps (the rest of) the EU have realised we'll wreck ourselves and they just need to keep a little distance so they don't get too blame, while all the money making things move to mainland Europe, we trash our society, education, economy etc... (they have perhaps adopted the idea about not arguing with idiots because onlookers might not be able to tell the difference).

In reply to HardenClimber:

Harden - so the 196 economists who predicted disaster if we leave and signed a letter to taht effect were a fake news story....hmm
My other thoughts before seeing the above... and this is the last from me you will be glad

Heck. Bile and abuse not directed at me, but at those who voted to Leave and still want to leave – either direct abuse, ‘the loons get the upper hand’ ‘zealots, bigots and xenophobe’ or indirect comments suggesting those who voted to leave are stupid or easily fooled.’ To whomever it was that wanted the Rogers’ link – do a little legwork please. He was for many years our man at the EU, is not in favour of leaving, but at least gives us some idea of the complexity of what has happened and an understanding that the world isn’t binary (if you want binary read D Mail, Mirror and Guardian. It’s the utter predictability of the comments on this site that is so depressing. Unoriginal and lazy: people can’t get out of their ideological bunkers. And I thought climbers were meant to be good at problem solving, tackling seemingly impossible challenges, taking risks, thinking differently, seeing the bigger picture. Nah. The reverse side of the Remainers’ belief/hope that there will be an apocalypse was well expressed in a Guardian piece from the Midlands just after the result – a Leaver was asked - what if the consequence of leaving means the City flees to Germany and the economy collapses and we are all out of jobs – and he replied, “well at least they will know how it feels to be poor like me.” As for the car industry stat – note that car production briefly nose-dived after the Financial Crash 2008/9 (which happened while we were in the EU and, if you read Rogers and others, was the proximate cause of the referendum and the parting of the ways – crash was existential crisis for EU, Grexit etc and probs still remains so – UK not part of ECB network had some freedom via rates to soften the blow, but not those Club Med countries tied to DMark rates) but last year was at record levels. Issue of migration and free movement is fascinating. Find me a reference to a debate on this on the floor of the House – and then think about Dominic Cummings. As Rogers says, there wasn’t even a debate in the Cabinet – “I agree with what Andrew Adonis said in an earlier lecture. I recall remarkably little discussion of it inside No 10 before May 2004. The official internal forecasts we saw of the potential numbers of arrivals were, as one looks back, just laughably low, and were discredited within months. We should all have asked ourselves then whether they could possibly be right. The one serious high-level discussion before the decision which I recall, because, as Principal Private Secretary, I was there to take the minute of their bilateral, was a meeting between the then Governor of the Bank, Mervyn King, and the PM. King pressed the case to open the labour market without transition on the grounds that it would help lower wage growth and inflation, address supply bottlenecks in a fast-growing pre-financial crisis economy, and help keep interest rates low” So unrestricted migration from new member states was chiefly a policy about wage suppression

In reply to Deadeye:






6. The sinking pound gives a short term stimulation to the economy

In reply to john yates:
How anyone can use present unemployment stats to try and show this county is doing well is beyond me. So many people on zero hour contracts, a huge amount of people in employment but not on a living wage and of course the fact that wage growth has been stagnant for 10 years and will be for the foreseeable future. Poverty and inequality is sky high. The tories have somehow doubled the debt during 'austerity' while cutting public spending... Unbelievable.

In reply to john yates:




How the f*ck am I supposed to read this ^^^^^^^^^^

W

In reply to john yates:

Paragraphs, man! Paragraphs!

In reply to john yates:

In the words of T May, PM

Nothing is agreed until it's all agreed.

I'll answer your question when it's all agreed (or we plunge over the brink )

In reply to john yates:


Well, as you replied to me, perhaps you could point out the vitriol and abuse?

In reply to john yates:

>>I thought climbers were meant to be good at problem solving, tackling seemingly impossible challenges, taking risks, thinking differently, seeing the bigger picture.

Staying alive is perhaps the most important skill for a climber....

Boulderers... That way too big!
Trad Climbers... Long, poor holds...horrible landing...no rests... pub's closed
Winter climbers.... Necky new route... can't see the top 85%. looks irreversible.
Mountaineers..... That'll take years, loads of kit, huge risk and if it goes we'll only end up in the next valley
Sport climbers.... That'll take years. I could dog it but my belayers will have all got fed up and abandond me.
Indoor climbers.... I know you said it would feel exposed.....
Armchair..... You can do it. Just go for it. You won't need much gear.
Ski Mountaineer.... Awesome descent into remove valley, huge climb back out and avalanche risk of 6+

In reply to john yates:


Fairer to say underemployment is at a 42-year high. This relates to poor productivity; we have a lot of people being underpaid to work very inefficiently. The French have the opposite problem; high unemployment but people who do have a job are working very long hours (yes, the French) - which, depending on how you look at it, makes them appear much more productive than we are.

At the moment I don't think this is really a Brexit thing, but I suspect it's about to get worse because of uncertainty discouraging the investment we need.

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


Look up deficit vs debt. This has been done a hundred times. The debt must rise until the deficit is reversed. It's the most simple maths but you could with a refresher.

In fact the Herculean task of reversing the deficit is nearly achieved and we can soon anticipate cutting our debt.

For balance, many believe this has come at some cost, namely Austerity and its effects, which explain the rise of Corbyn and possibly contributed to the vote to Leave. Although that decision has many influences.

In reply to john yates:


Did you bother to read it, or is your opinion purely prejudice?

In reply to john yates:



No, that's not abuse. It's just a description of the situation. By trying to paint that as abuse, you and others are simply trying to shut down debate. Further pretending to get in a huff over that sort of thing while supporting a group who refer to those against them as "enemies of the people" and "traitors", who blatantly lie in parliament, and who use posters deliberately recalling nazi era images against immigration is grossly hypocritical

In reply to BnB:


You don't seriously believe that? 'Austerity' hasn't worked (well it has but it was never supposed to do what it says on the tin), growth is dismal and declining and there will be another shock when we put pen to paper on brexit in a 2019, then likely again in another two or three years. Nobody can survive another election on a platform of even deeper cuts; people are dying, homelessness is an epidemic, hospitals are on their knees, the public are sick to the back teeth of it whether or not they recognise the cause. I'm genuinely intrigued by how you see all that coming together to produce a budget surplus any time soon.
jk

In reply to john arran:
OK free of bile, prejudice and insult, could I ask you to do a simple thought experiment?

Can you paint a picture for us, of what the best possible outcome for the UK could look like post Brexit?

Presumably you have answers to questions like who will be manning the NHS? Who will be picking our crops? How will we pass through (currently non-existent) passport controls at airports? What regulations will customs and revenue be applying to goods being imported (and ditto on the EU side)? How will elbow our way to the top in trade talks ahead of a bloc of 500 million? How will we deal with nuclear issues, drug licences, international crime, environmental issues, when we no longer have seats at the relevant committee tables?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

My picture might curiously resemble the cliff-top we jumped from last year.

But I suspect your question was intended for Mr Yates.

In reply to john yates:


I agree with the need of a less ideological and less emotional debate.

But first you have to get your facts rights.The economy didn’t fall of a cliff but growth has been severely impacted by inflation and uncertainty, which is exactly what had been predicted btw.

Despite all that has been said, in hindsight, it seems to me that the treasury analysis, as well as the OECD analysts of the short term impact of brexit was remarkably accurate.

Maybe it’s time people just bloody listened to all these evil “experts” instead of making stuff up and constantly trying to create a political narrative around everything, because so far they’ve got more things right than anybody else.

In reply to john yates:

Your thread reminded me of when I went deep sea fishing with the scouts for mackerel.I dropped in a line with loads of hooks on it. Then about 5 minutes later I couldn't pull it up. Thought I must have hooked an anchor or huge rock on the sea bed. Eventually, with help we managed to reel the line in....and the reason it was so hard was because every hook had a mackerel swinging from it

In reply to BnB:



I thought that Hammond has just kicked the target for cutting the deficit way off into the long grass? Am I wrong? Seems to me that it could take at least another ten years.

So judging from the dislikes there are actually a few of you who presumably believe we're well on our way to a budget surplus in the coming few years.

What am I missing or misunderstanding, how do you see that happening?
jk

In reply to john arran:

Yes sorry, wrong post.

In reply to john yates:

The scaremongering of the campaign was indeed proved wrong - in the short term - however we haven't left the EU yet.

If anyone is in doubt that we are in for a very uncertain future, just listen to Michael Gove's recent comments where basically he is saying once we've left the EU 'we can tear up any agreements we make during the negotiation period as long as there is a parliamentary majority because we won't be bound by EU law' which is basically what the Tory Eurosceptics have wanted all along. A risky strategy for the country - but all the Tories are really interested in is hanging on to power at Westminster.

As I said before the referendum, be very careful what you wish for as it might just happen.

or as the late great Sir Terry Prathett wrote " There is an old curse -- may you live in Interesting Times"

In reply to BnB:



Yeah, but the deficit more than doubled as well. In fact it's still above the level when Labour were last in office. It's not about maths. It's about knowing the facts.

Also if we're going to give 40 billion to the EU and carry on paying our fees on top of that, borrowing will go up. They can't have that kinda money just hanging around with all the cuts they've made, right?

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


What are you talking about? The deficit has been dropping rapidly since 2010. It is now about where it was before the huge recession. You need to compare what Labour would have done if in power with the coalition and now Tories. You can guess the effects either way

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


Which you clearly don't. Let me refer you to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility. This only last month:

"The government has made significant progress since 2010 in restoring the public finances to health. The deficit has been reduced by three quarters from a post-war high of 9.9% of GDP in 2009-10 to 2.3% in 2016-17, its lowest level since before the financial crisis.

The OBR expects the government will meet its 2% structural deficit rule for 2020-21 two years before target, in 2018?19"

In reply to BnB:

Yeah I made a mistake. For some reason I always think the Tories came in in 2008. I shouldn't debate politics while playing clash of clans and walking to the climbing centre.

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


You can't admit you're wrong on a UKC Brexit thread. Double down and slag off Boris!!

Thanks for your honesty meanwhile

In reply to BnB:

I'm always happy to admit mistakes and learn but it's difficult to teach yourself about a subject where a lot of the matter is opinion and where people lie and distort the truth for personal and political gain. I understand the minefield of teaching politics in school but it wasn't even an option. I'm pretty sure it would have been more useful than Latin.

In reply to john yates:
It's a fair cop. I was wrong. I expected an economic apocalypse by now. Maybe it will never come?

Maybe...

In reply to BnB:
The UK national debt is about 14 % higher since the Tories took office in 2010 and with the creation of £435 billion in QE.

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


Oh I don't know. Boris has attained the dizzy heights of a Great Office of State and it seems knowing Latin is his main qualification.

In reply to john yates:

Well this all looks chipper...

Fears grow across the Atlantic over Brexit fallout - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42315280

In reply to 8A machine elf:

Until you understand the difference between debt and deficit you won't understand why this comment is ill-informed and economically illiterate. Think

a) what is "the deficit" and what is "debt"
b) what happens to debt if there is a deficit?
c) even as the deficit falls, what will the sum of debt do until the deficit is negative?
d) how big was the deficit in 2008?
e) how big is it today?

Those are the questions understood by the OBR which I quoted above.

In reply to 8A machine elf:


It isnt. Its 53% higher. But read this

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and-conservative-records-national-debt/

In reply to BnB:

That's a rather condescending response to a statement of fact*. I see no indication in the statement or implied by it that he doesn't understand the difference between debt and deficit.

I'm still interested where you're getting your information from that we're going to be running a surplus any time soon. I can't see how given the political freedom available to cut deeper, forecast dismal growth and turbulent times ahead.

*I'm taking the number at face value, I all the figures I find are expressed as a fraction of GDP and I can't be bothered unpicking it but it looks ballpark right, perhaps a bit low
jk

In reply to Ian W:



Very interesting.

In reply to Ian W:

The full fact article is interesting -, the issues began with the financial crisis, because that is when the debt began to sharply tick upwards, and yet the trend has remained consistently upwards since then.

Given we have had austerity during that time, so it is hard to attribute that rise in debt to overspending on a day to day basis, doesn't that point to an issue with receipts / growth - perhaps lending support to the arguments of the macroeconomists who argue we should be spending more to stimulate the economy because while growth / productivity is so poor and interest rates so low, it still needs a jump start of this kind?

The other factors that I can see could lead to the same result include (1) that we are now paying for commitments entered into previously (e.g. PFI); (2) we have sold off some income generators (e.g. privatisation of profitable things like royal mail leading to a short term receipt but long term loss of a revenue stream) and (3) demographic changes leading to higher costs.

I would guess that the issue arises from a combination of most of the above...

In reply to jkarran:




No surplus is predicted anytime soon.
The OBR is predicting that the deficit will be at 2% soon.
However the OBR is not talking about the actual budget deficit, they are talking about the cyclically adjusted budget deficit.

Basically don’t hope for an actual surplus anytime soon. Not only the consensus is that the OBR is too optimistic but even the OBR doesn’t predict it anytime soon.

Anyway, this is all a bit of a moot point. At the end of the day, what matters really is not debt/gdp or deficit/gdp, it is ability to repay, ie, the ratio of debt against the revenue you can realistically raise.

And on that front it’s been getting worse.

In reply to john yates:


Remain or leave. We don't know the outcome yet as we haven't left so your post is null and void.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I agree, I was just responding to BnB's :


It's not his normal style to parrot propaganda or get something he's interested in radically wrong so I was intrigued to know what it is I'm missing. It might just be hope!
jk

In reply to andyfallsoff:

There will be a combination of all of these, and I would argue some other factors which are more worrying for the long term structure of the economy. Some of those things you have mentioned also contribute to our balance of payments deficit eg overseas ownership of privatised structural assets (rail , power etc).
However, if the average Brit thought more about what they were buying, there would be much more skilled, productive, "value added" work in the economy. How much value added is there in retail or call centres (with all due respect to those working in them), compared to skilled jobs in manufacturing / engineering?
Here's a thought. Given the supply chain multipliers, in very simple terms, every 12 - 14 mercs we buy instead of Jags deprives someone near coventry of a job. And the uk govt of the taxes they would pay. Etc.
Ultra simplistic, but put up an argument against it......

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Given that we were overspending massively on a day to day basis, and that at no point have we not been overspending how does this make sense? Austerity has only amounted to a gradual reduction in the overspend...

In reply to jkarran:



He didn’t get anything wrong BTW. He’s just missing the point, in my view.

The tories ideological obsession with reducing the deficit quickly when there was no need to go that quickly has actually ended up putting the UK in a weaker fiscal position, whilst making social problems worse.

If only they had listen to all the evil “experts” who had told them time and time again to slow down....

But it seems the age of reason is behind us in British politics.

In reply to john yates:
Dismal to see the updated inflation numbers - combine them with continually dismal productivity and the UK hasn't so much fallen off a cliff as is sliding into a swamp

In reply to RomTheBear:


You'll have to explain, there clearly is something I'm missing. Are you agreeing the defecit has been significantly reduced (by herculean effort) but ignoring the final step to surplus required before we can cut debt in absolute terms or are you assuming 'cut debt' means as a fraction of GDP or something else I'm not seeing?


I agree but it seems unrelated to my apparent confusion.
jk

In reply to wbo:


The number of lost work days due to snow won't exactly be helping UK productivity either.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Because that's entirely one-sided and ignores the stimulation to the economy (and hence higher tax receipts) that you get from spending. You're treating it like a household with a fixed income and only variable outgoings, whereas a better analogy is to treat it like a business where spending to invest can create more revenue.

Of course, there is a balance and a country can't spend regardless of any consequence, but (a) cutting expenditure also has negative consequences so causes the economy to shrink, and (b) for a country with an independent currency and central bank, it is nearly impossible to go bankrupt because money can be printed. Downside of that can be inflation, but given that we haven't been near the inflation target (until recently), that indicates a lot of slack available should we choose to use it - so we have some headroom in this regard. That indicates to me that we've been too aggressive in cutting, which is also consistent with the poor economic results we've seen in the past 7 years or so.

However, now that a sliding pound means we have higher inflation, we might be losing some of that freedom to act.

In reply to jkarran:

I agree with BnB that the deficit has been reduced.
I disagree that this is likely to continue, unless somehow taxes are raised significantly. In fact the deficit is rising again.

My assessment is that the general government deficit will remain at 3/3.5% for quite a while, hence why we won’t see the debt coming down anytime soon.

But overall, as I said, I don’t think the level of deficit and debt really matters, at the end it’s much better to have a lot of debt you can easily repay than having less debt that you are going to be struggling to repay.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

You haven't answered the question. Your "given" above still doesn't make any sense.

In reply to RomTheBear:


IMF: "The government’s strong deficit reduction plan will ensure fiscal sustainability"

http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/52/mcs092710

These experts? Or different ones?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Is that even disputable?


I do too which is why I disagree we're likely to see an absolute reduction in debt anytime soon. It was a two part statement, the latter part was the bit I didn't/don't understand.
jk

In reply to thomasadixon:
It isn't a given that we were overspending "massively" on a day to day basis before then - there was a deficit (day to day spending) prior to the financial crisis, but it was historically not that high (and there is no issue running a small deficit assuming *some* growth in the economy). Looking at the historic figures, the deficit from 2001 - 2007 was comparable to levels between 1992 - 1996.

The point I was making is that the level of deficit prior to the financial crisis wasn't causing the debt to increase sharply - it only did so after the crisis, at the same time that day to day spending was cut. If the economy had recovered and reached pre-crisis trends, the level of deficit wouldn't have been an issue. Unless of course you believe the analogy of govt debt being like household finances, which as I've tried to point out doesn't work.

There were lots of other points in my message you could address, and more politely too? You seem to be starting on a cast iron premise that we're overspending, but you don't seem willing to engage with the benefits of spending more / issues with cutting expenditure.

In reply to thomasadixon:




I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you didn't realise that link is to a document published in 2010, as the alternative would be that you're seriously suggesting that a document from 2010 somehow supports economic strategy in 2017, which surely you aren't stupid enough to propose.

In reply to thomasadixon:


I'm no economist, but I think a lot depends on the usefulness of what you're "overspending" on. If you want a household analogy, imagine you have a salary of £20k, and you are offered a job in the next town for £30k, but you don't have a car to get there. Borrowing to buy a car will increase your personal debt level but still be an economically sound choice.

So we can argue over the usefulness of the spending, but the government's line that spending is a neccessary evil that should be cut at all costs doesn't add up.

In reply to thomasadixon:



Yes, exactly these ones, but if only you had an understanding of chronology...
Since then the IMF warned the government at least three times to ease off on austerity.

Reducing deficit is a good thing, but not when you’re causing damage to your ability to actually repay debts in the future.

What’s happened really, in simple terms, it’a that the UK government has been reducing the deficit too fast, irreparably damaging the productive capacity of the country, and they plugged the holes they were creating with record levels of immigration.

As we found out, it wasn’t sustainable, the cat is out of the bag and brexit, which the tories brought upon themselves, has accelerated the process of exposing all the structural weaknesses in the economy that they have created.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


IIRC mid nineties was a recession, 2001-2007 wasn't. They're not a reasonable comparison.


The financial crisis was a long time ago. When the Tories first came in the deficit was causing debt to increase sharply.


Spending has been consistently above earnings, that we're doing something people term austerity doesn't change that. It's not hard to attribute the rise in debt to spendings > earnings, it's a direct an unavoidable consequence.

In reply to john arran:

It was deliberately chosen. The complaint was about the Tories "ideological obsession". The plan was approved, when it was originally designed and implemented, by the "experts" that Rom said we should listen to. The speed of the cuts was set out in that plan.

In reply to Ciro:

Nor am I, and I don't disagree with what you're saying. I do think it's daft to say that spending being higher than earnings doesn't increase debt. Of course it does when we're talking about government finances. That's not to say it's necessarily bad for the economy for spending to ever be above earnings.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Sorry if you feel I was impolite. The rest followed from your premise, which as far as I can see doesn't make sense.

In reply to thomasadixon:


in which case I'm speechless.

In reply to thomasadixon:


A. But we never recovered from it! Your argument is like speaking to a patient who's had heart surgery 6m later and saying "well, that was a long time ago, you should be better by now". The results indicate the economy never got fully better.

B. See above - expenditure and economic recovery are linked. Yes, it will get worse if the economy doesn't recover - to my mind, that's a reason to try and make the economy recover not to lower our expectations as to what public services we can have.


Only if you ignore that spending more can boost the economy. Which you seem to, consistently, in all of these messages, because you then say contradictory things like "it's a direct an(d) unavoidable consequence".

You must accept this really, because presumably you aren't advocating cutting ALL govt spending (and more than I am advocating spending as much as we'd like without any regard to the consequences). The question is whether the balance is right. It would help if you at least started by acknowledging this, rather than painting it all in black and white terms...

In reply to thomasadixon:

In case you weren’t aware, there were several budgets in between and a general election, but never mind...

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I'm not sure what you mean by this.


Yes, they're linked. It doesn't follow that so called austerity is the reason for the economy not recovering. It doesn't follow that spending more will necessarily cause the economy to recover.


I said when talking about *government finances* it is a direct consequence. How is that contradictory?


Painting what in black and white terms?

In reply to RomTheBear:


The fact that he had to go back 7 years, to the immediate aftermath of one of the world's biggest economic crises, to find any informed opinion in support of austerity, should be all anyone needs to know in assessing its relevance today.

That anyone could think that highlighting the near total lack of expert support for austerity for 7 whole years, could somehow support an argument in favour of it now, is simply astounding.

In reply to john arran:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10881540/IMF-accepts-it-was-wr...

"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has abandoned its criticism of George Osborne’s economic strategy and finally agreed that his deficit reduction plan is “appropriate”."

This better?

In reply to john arran:



That is thomasdixon for you, he always make a point on every thread to argue his case in the poorest way possible.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Slightly better, yes. Got anything better than a one-year snapshot three years ago in which the IMF admitted to having made a less than accurate prediction the previuous year? Hardly conclusive proof of the efficacy of austerity in 2017, is it? What's happened, for example, in 2015, 2016 and 2017? Or for that matter, 2011, 2012 and 2013?

In reply to john arran:

I've not tried to provide conclusive proof of austerity...

Rom's point was that we should follow the experts. You claimed a near total lack of expert support for 7 years. The experts, when the plan was implemented, approved of it, and while they changed their mind a couple of years later they then admitted that they were wrong to do so, and that austerity was the right course of action. That's not a lack of support for 7 years, and it's not a timeline that tells us we should follow the experts.

In reply to thomasadixon:



Your reading of those events seems unreasonably skewed. Some experts - far from all - supported an austerity programme following the 2008 crisis. Just a few years later and there was no longer to my knowledge any reputable authority in support of continuing it, now that the immediate crisis had passed. One surprise outcome in one isolated year since then does little to suggest that Osborne was correct in pursuing that agenda year on year against the recommendation of pretty much all expert advice. Unless of course, you're starting with what you want to be true and bending the evidence to suit.

In reply to john arran:


Even George appears to have been pretty skeptical of his own plan when it actually came to implementation he was nothing like as 'tough' as he was talking. Thankfully given the harm done.
jk

In reply to thomasadixon:


You said that the financial crisis was a long time ago. My point is that is isn't how long ago it was that matters, it's whether or not we've recovered.


It might well be, though, and there are many respected economists who say that is exactly the reason.


See above. You haven't made a point here - you've just said "it doesn't follow". Why not? Are you saying it can't be the case, or just that there isn't 100% certainty? I'd agree with the latter, but not the former.


If spending more can help finances because it boosts the economy, then it contradicts that to claim that not spending will help finances.


That there is a clear answer that not spending will help the govt finances. It might not, if it harms the economy (i.e. the downside to the economy leading to lower tax receipts could outweigh the cash saving by reducing the deficit).

In reply to andyfallsoff:


We were talking about whether we were overspending. As far as I can see we were definitely after the crisis and I think before the crisis too. Your comparison with period in the 90s when we were in recession, and that we were in deficit by the same amount then as under labour's stewardship, shows that I'd say. Re not recovering - what would count as being recovered? Do you think that there's a certain point we should be at that we've not reached? I'd say 2007 was the top of a boom. Even then we were spending more than we earned. Expecting to get back to the top of the boom, and so be able to match spending levels from that time, is not reasonable.


Might be, sure, it also might be other factors which will still be there if we start spending lots and so things will just get even worse as we'll add to the problem.


It doesn't necessarily follow. There seems to be an idea that if we just spend more than life will be better, if we just keep spending everything we already spend and then add to that we'll get out of debt. I don't see that this will happen. The deficit from 2001 onwards did not get us out of debt, it got us deeper in.


I think you've read something into what I've said that's not there. Day to day, which is what you said, spending more than you earn equals more debt. Long term spending more might get you out of debt, if it's clever spending.


True, and I've not said otherwise.

In reply to wbo:

Don’t disagree. But nothing to do with Brexit or my point about the tone of the debate.

In reply to john arran:

You obviously don’t have a day job.

In reply to thomasadixon:

It sounds like we're closer than it originally sounded in a lot of ways - except that your default view is we're spending too much; whereas I think the starting position right now is that we aren't spending enough (because the poor economic performance indicates an economy that desperately needs a Keynesian boost).

Otherwise, we are trapped in a cycle where growth disappoints and we keep having to cut more; which further hurts growth, so we have to cut more next year; etc, etc.

I find Simon Wren Lewis gives a good explanation of the arguments for Keynesian economic policy; e.g.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/productivity-and-monetary-policy...

In reply to john yates:

Inflation at a six year high. This Brexit business IS going well, isn't it?

Or is this something else that is the fault of us remoaners?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Your latter comment rather proves my initial point about the temper of the debate. Needless snide comments. The apparent causal link between inflation figures and Brexit rather proves my second point: that each side selects a statistic and somehow attributes it to Brexit. As always with inflation causes can be many and varied. But almost a decade of QE post 2008 crash is perhaps the major factor. It is also the cause of much capital and risk misallocation and the widening of the gap between rich and poor (the bubble effect on asset values, chiefly property). As for all previous comments on austerity, I would suggest the global aggregate debt has not been reduced. Indeed it is now substantially higher than pre-2008. The question isn’t whether there will be another and bigger crash, but when. But we can at least amuse ourselves with circular debates about Brexit. Funny though that the thing which precipated this was a banking crisis. What was it that Marx said about history?

In reply to john yates:
Are you saying that the devaluation of the £ after Brexit had no impact on inflation? Are you saying that suppliers merely used Brexit as an excuse to put up their prices to make more money or was it because of higher import costs on food etc.

I think you are looking for something which was not there.

In reply to neilh:

Neil, no I am not saying the loss in value of sterling is unrelated to inflation. It is a given the the lower pound makes the import of raw materials, part made parts, goods and services more expensive. But Brexit is not entirely the cause of Sterling’s loss in value. Our ability and BoE willingness to get to zero rates is big factor. My point is that inflation is caused by many things. High levels of employment, as we are now st a 42 year high, are a factor: but not as strong as was true in the seventies. In large part due to depressing effect on wage structure from free movement of Eastern European workers/ a key reason BoE governor Mervyn King advocated fast track to open borders to Tony Blair. I guess my whole point, if I have one, is that it is difficult to make bold causal statements about impact of Brexit. Other than it has divided people to the point where civil conversation becomes impossible.

In reply to neilh:

Neil you might also note that inflation was last higher than this in 2012, some four years before the referendum. Just looked at ONS figures and input price inflation is very high. So you are right on its potential impact on CPI, but I’m not sure what stats are for how increased costs were passed on to consumers, or sucked up in squeezed margins ( latter made more possible by QE...and increase in zombie firms).

In reply to john yates:

This myth still perdures it seems... there is no evidence of significant depressing effect on the wage structure from EU migration. If anything the evidence points to a marginal positive effect overall, and negative pressure mainly concentrated on existing h migrants.

In reply to thomasadixon:



Is it really so hard to understand that what was necessary in 2010 wasn’t necessary in 2015 ?

In reply to john yates:


Did you have a point you were trying to make with that comment, or was it just to waste everyone's time?

In reply to john arran:


Just be thankful he’s above making snide remarks, unlike remainers,

In reply to john yates:

Most of the finance experts I have talked to think that the decrease in the value of the pound versus the dollar is almost entirely due to fears of Brexit. (Mainly the fears of foreign investors.) The pound is down about 14% before the fears of Brexit began (in about Nov 2015). Goodness knows where the pound will go to if we really Brexit. The biggest financial problem for the UK is we are such a massive net importer. I suppose the best we can hope for is some kind of Norwegian EEA type deal. But will the average cash-strapped Brit really be able to cope with Norwegian prices?

In reply to john yates:
Sorry to say I disagree with you, so we will leave it at that.

In reply to thomasadixon: the financial crisis might have been a long time ago , but I don't see why you find the statement that we've never recovered confusing. Look at the level of recovery, inflation and wage growth since then - awful. Life support rather than a recovery.

Bear in mind running a household budget is a poor analogy for a countries - different priorities, tools. First of all in the fin. Crisis debt rose massively as a result of bailouts, and letting those banks go bust is/was not credible. Now we've had big debts before but the problem is the general state of the economy as if we had inflation at 5, 7% you can soon deflate a debt to size . But right now the uk can't do that.

So where are we at. A services based economy powered by debt and credit on, eg houses. Poor productivity causing terrible wage growth, so potentially large problems for the service sector as people are getting poorer and poor people don't buy services. If inflation goes up they get poorer, the economy hurts. Brexit, and deliberately reducing your market is pouring petrol on a fire. If there's an easy answer I don't see it. You can't fix the uk economy and debt by just choking spending - you have to force the economy to grow.

In reply to MG:

Guilty as charged.

In reply to John Stainforth:

What's your/their explanation for the plummeting Pound pre Nov 2015?
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=5Y
What happened July 2014? I've asked this question 2 or 3 times to date, never had a response (that I've seen).

In reply to John Stainforth:


At least as well as the average cash strapped Norwegian, who imports most of their consumption. Also note Norwegian prices are higher due to higher tax rates, which pay for their more extensive (than the UK) social programs and infrastructure, allowing them to save their oil income in a pretty impressive savings account..........

In reply to Lusk:




If you take the 10 year view

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=10Y

The July 14 fall looks more like part of the usual fluctuations between 1.40 and 1.70

Then in jun 16 there is a clear discontinuity and that changes to a new normal between 1.20 and 1.30

In reply to Lusk:

Yo could have drawn your own conclusions from the chart itself if you expand it to the 10 year view.

From the Financial crisis of 2008 to 2015 the puond traded broadly within the 1.55 to 1.60 ish range. Late 2013 it rose to high 1.60's, and then fell back in 2014 to the previous level, but didnt stabilise as uncertainties regarding brexit, and the general poor performance of the UK economy then started to impact the pound.
So for me, without doing further research on your behalf, the reason was a correction to previous levels from a peak that could have just as well been due to weakness in the dollar in 2013 as opposed to a weakness in the pound in 2014 (in relation to each other....)

In reply to Ian W:

I think prior to the 2014 peak there were hints on an interest rise too, which resulted in the pound rising. These didn't materialise.

In reply to John Stainforth:

Over the past year the pound has been the third best performing significant currency against the dollar, the euro being the best.

In reply to Postmanpat:


which must be from pretty much the low point after both currencies received a kicking from the Brexit vote fiasco, so not really a fair comparison to currencies that weren't just kicked in the goolies. Hardly surprising the Euro has recovered pretty well since then. Sterling seems to have risen slightly, I'm guessing because the likelihood of a hard Brexit has been steadily reducing (but no doubt remains a serious threat).

In reply to john arran:

Also, how many "significant" currencies are there? 6, maybe? Which would make the pound the third worst too!

In reply to MG:
The list was 10. Things like sw fr, jpy, can $ etc

In reply to john arran:

Probably, but what it tells us is that despite all shenanigans over negotiations etc in the past year, sterling hasn't been week. The euro has been strong (largely for cyclical reasons).
Sterling would appear to discounted any orderly form of brexit. That leaves crashing out or Corbyn as the risks.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It doesn't tell us anything of the sort, and I suspect you know it doesn't. Having been kicked down so much - maybe 20-25% I'm guessing overall, it's not surprising that some of that will have been recovered as it became increasingly likely that investors' worst fears of economic isolation were receding in likelihood. That's a very very different thing to Sterling showing anything resembling strength. It seems to have settled at an intermediate, but significantly weaker, level and I suppose it will hover around its current level until more is known about the future relationship with or within the EU.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The 10year graph above looks pretty clear to me- relatively stable variability around 1.50 USD for several years; then a shock at the point of brexit, and a step down to around 1.20, with a marginal recovery to 1.30- still below the lowest points in the cyclical variability of the previous decade.

That Brexit has had a substantial and persistent effect on the USD: sterling exchange rate looks beyond debate judging on that evidence

In reply to john arran:
Well actually, ignoring the politics and economics and judging hy the numbers alone it shows just that: it’s not been weak in the past year. It’s been one of the world’s firmer currencies.

Since currencies are a forward looking discounting mechanism it has therefore likely discounted the central expectation: some sort of middle ground deal. Which funnily enough suggests that you are agreeing with me.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>
Yes, of course.

In reply to Postmanpat:



You're deliberately ignoring the fact that outlook is a relative concept. If the outlook is impossibly bleak one day and relatively less bleak the next, the currency will rise. That in no way indicates any currency strength, simply an outcome of the politics and economics you seem keen to disregard.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You say that, but it seems that some people don’t accept it....

In reply to john arran:


Nonsense.
1) I was simply saying that the numbers not the politics etc show whetherSterling has been weak or strong. That is incontrovertible.

2) sterling has, as you acknowledge, “found a level” over the past year which means that it has discounted certain outcomes. What do you think they are?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Who?

In reply to Postmanpat:



As I pointed out already but you chose to ignore again, they don't don't show anything of the sort. In this case, and over this timeframe, they show reduced weakness. That's a very different thing to strength.


It hasn't completely discounted anything, but it has factored in likelihoods, one of which is that the chance of a hard Brexit is not as high as it was a year or so ago, and the chance of no Brexit at all is also higher. That doesn't mean that either of these things will happen or not, just that their likelihoods have changed, and the pound is stronger as a result of that increased confidence.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Looking back on this thread, no one....



...but there has been a downplaying of the relative importance of its impact, from my reading of eg John Yates’ contributions; when the graph I linked shows it to be the most important event since the financial crash nearly 10years ago, changing the midpoint at which there is variation around by nearly 20%

In reply to john arran:

>
If something goes up over a timeframe it is described as “firm” or “strong”. I assume that when you use the term “reduced weakness” it is your bizarre way of dismissing it as a “bounce”. It may just be a bounce but that doesn’t mean it hasn't been firm over the period described. As of now we don’t know but your terminology would be laughed at by a trader.

>
So you are almost totally agreeing with me. Good.

The psychology of why you thought you were disagreeing is more revealing than the facts of the case. You remainers seem to replaced analysis with emotion

In reply to Postmanpat:

An unfathomable interpretation, but there's nothing stopping you from seeing the world that way if you really want to.

In reply to john yates: We didn't fall off a cliff edge

Not quite yet, come back next year!

In reply to Postmanpat:


The markets have simply taken into account that the risk of a no deal scenario has decreased somewhat. And the risk of no transition as well.

For the rest, despite some media commentary claiming otherwise, the UK Government is still committed to the UK leaving both the single market and customs union, so that remains the central scenario at the moment.

In reply to john arran:



And we've just had a small interest rate rise.

In reply to john yates:

Wonderful high-minded brexiteers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/14/dominic-grieve-says-he-has...

In reply to MG:

As my initial post said - the difficulty we are in is that this is such a divisive issue and both camps seem bent on hurling abuse at one another - several people on this thread have made the mistake that I am a Leaver....that is not the case

.....the story highlighted by MG proves my point about the vicious tone of the debate....and it comes across in the contemptuous tone of many of the comments about - for me, the good thing about the rebellion in the Guardian article is that it is restoring something of the true role of Parliament. Which is, in part, what 'taking back control' is about - the restoration of Parliamentary democracy.

There was no such debate on the floor of the House about the opening of our borders to unlimited migration from the newly acceded EU states. Nor, had there been, would we have been able to reject it had MPs so decided.

The reality is, as Sir Ivan Rogers has pointed out there was not even a debate within the Cabinet at the time....it was seen as a good thing as our economy needed cheap, compliant non-unionised labour... and therein lies the source of our current troubles (and before people scream racist, I am not saying that we should close our borders.....just that decisions on these matters should be for elected Parliaments to decide, not the largely undemocratic supranational bodies over which what were once sovereign nation states have little right to veto.

In reply to john yates:

Yawn

In reply to john yates:

The story highlights the dishonesty of leavers. They aren't interested in sovereignty in reality, they just want impose their proto facist ideas. Any barrier to that, be it the EU or now parliament, is denigrated and at the margins murdered or threatened with murder. Similarly they aren't interested in civil debate a - see any headline. Yet some how remainers pointing out the reality and having the temerity to be contemptuous of brexiters are ones to blame.

I also don't believe for a moment you are a remainer

In reply to MG:


Not the first on here to claim to be a remainer while espousing views very consistent with supporting brexit, though I can't for the life of me work out what the psychology of that could be. Very odd.

In reply to john yates:



It's a pity the daily mail doesn't share that opinion, or most of the rest of the media.



Right so immigration from the accession countries could have been controlled by the UK govt, but Blair and Brown decided to let them all in. What exactly was the undemocratic supra national EU proto-superstate's role in this? The UK could have had a transitional arrangement with the accession states, ooh look - just like Germany did. Our immigration problems are largely of our own making.

In reply to john yates:



I think Ivan Rogers' point was that agreeing to very few transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries wasn't really discussed as is wasn't even controversial at the time. Certainly, if the Government - or Parliament - had wanted to impose greater controls they could have done, as nearly all other EU countries did. In fact that was part of the problem. The estimate of a net inflow of up to 13,000 immigrants from the accession countries carried an important - and often forgotten - caveat.... the estimate was based on all EU countries choosing to forego transitional controls. In the end only the UK, Ireland and Sweden decided to forego such controls which had the effect of channelling more migrants to the UK.

They estimated that if Germany imposed transitional migration controls - which in the end they did - then about a third of the 100,000 eastern europeans expected to migrate to Germany would instead come to the UK, increasing the net inflow to the UK by 30,000 and making it a much more realistic - although still not accurate - figure.

In reply to john yates:

Are you saying that it all went by default? There was endless political discussion in the media about why the UK government chose not to use the transitional restrictions available (and implemented by some states). MPs could have defeated the government's wish not to have such transitional restrictions so I cannot accept what you say. Tony Blair carried the party line, overriding parliamentary sovereignty with his personality and cosy cabinet. Lots of people were somewhat annoyed that Britain did not act sensibly in this matter

In reply to john yates:
Looks like Germany may build a new cliff for Europe to fall off...


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/martin-schulz-united-states-o...

In reply to Big Ger:

That’s entirely standard SPD thinking. I note two people - one of whom ‘is undoubtedly one of the best all round climbers in the world’ - seem to think that if you are not a leaver you have to be a remainer. That’s the very blinkered, binary thinking my original OP was criticising. As for the third pillar of the EU, free movement of people, this was never debated on floor of Commons. Even had it been the best that could have been achieved was a tramsitional deal. My point is two fold. Our elected representatives were either ignorant of, or indifferent to, the impact of unrestricted migration on home communities. Which a decade later resulted in the current difficulties. Sir Ivan’s point. Second, that without QMV UK Parliament was unable to reject the open border policy. Lastly, I am with Tony benn on this: that having Parliament as legislature is essential to democracy: you can elect/boot out a government you like/don’t like. If one party favours unlimited migration and gets elected and the policy works it gets re-elected. If it doesn’t you vote them out. This option is not available in EU as currently constituted.

In reply to john yates:


I don't recall any other options on the ballot.



Yes you can via EU elections. You clearly are ignorant. That's not abuse, just a statement of fact.

In reply to MG:

Voting I seem to recall is not mandatory. I was working in one of the former Russian states at the time and while I could have got a postal ballot I didn’t.
On the latter point I think it is you who may be a little short on understanding EU governance.

In reply to john yatthink of a

You know the cliff we have to either fall off or walk round to the bottom of, I wonder what cliff is imagined. I picture Box Quarry at Baildon. For obvious reasons. Anyone think of a bigger choss hole?

In reply to john yates:

If you're going to dig around the internet looking for ways to play the person rather than the issue, presumably because you don't have strong enough arguments to stick to the issues themselves, then I'd recommend at least copying your quotes accurately, rather than subtly doctoring them for effect.

In reply to john arran:

Apologies. I was unable to copy. Read it and tried to remember it, but I am old! To correct... a person self-described as ‘undoubtedly one of the most accomplished all round climbers in the world.’ And who puts the definite article before Free Climber. Whether your presumption is correct is not for me to comment upon.

In reply to john yates:

I must say I'm impressed (among other things) at your determination in seeking to win points by critiquing the wording and even the domain name of a legacy promotional site that literally hasn't been touched for 10 years, and which is utterly unrelated to the thread at hand.

Or maybe, given that the thread is about falling off cliff edges, ones record of not having fallen off some notable ones in the past could be relevant after all?

In reply to john yates:

It is available, not through the EU but through our own parliament.

Because the EU doesn’t have a government it’s just a bunch of democratic countries agreeing to do things together on the basis of unanimity or QMV.

That’s not going to be different outside of the EU, we’ll still agree things with other countries that we can’t easily get out of, and our leaders will still “forget” to ask the people what they think.

In reply to RomTheBear:

As part of the EU it was and is impossible for any member state - post Lisbon - to implement its own border controls. If it were so simple it would not be the contentious issue it is. You could argue that this pillar was in the original treaty of Rome. But it has been decades in the implementation. By which time the scale and complexity of the EU has changed beyond recognition. Prior to the referendum any U.K. attempt to regulate migration had to focus on non-EU nationals as we had no power/authority over EU citizens.? This, I think, is what is meant by the ‘take back cobtrol’ Slogan.

In reply to john yates:


This is simply untrue and one of the biggest fallacies of the leave message. The EU does not require member states to accept long term residence of other EU member state nationals unless they are gainfully employed. The UK chose not to implement this restriction, citing implementation difficulties, but other EU member states do so. This has directly stoked some of the 'benefit tourism' scare stories that helped shape the referendum.

In reply to john arran:

Further, the "take back control" message was explicitly racist, with pictures of dark skinned immigrants in under emotive, nazi-era messages, and scare stories about Turkey.

In reply to john yates:

So you are too lazy to even vote but get upset on the internet when people describe the consequences.

In reply to john yates:

And every steps of the way our own government ratified all treaties and gave it gave its go ahead.


Control was never "lost". Our very own governments ratified all the EU treaties on which we agreed, in total sovereignty, to free movement for EU citizens. Nobody put a gun to our head to accept this. And we always had the option to walk out, which we did.

But to claim that we lost control of the border is utter bollocks. We decided ourselves to open them to EU citizens, we even didn't want of the transitional control.

If you think the whole process was undemocratic, the problem is not at the EU level, but in the UK, where successive government signed us up to stuff without asking anybody.

In reply to john yates:

It is a bit like a lemming saying "we haven't run off a cliff" simply because we haven't hit the bottom yet. In my view we are still falling

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Rom. I agree utterly with your final comment. U.K. govts, of all parties, signed ‘up to stuff’ without consulting the people. Either in the form of their own backbenchers or ministers - ie elected representatives - or via debate in the House. Where I disagree is in our ability to opt out. Fundamentally this is about two very different visions of Europe. One much more integrationist than the other. Had we not ratified free movement it would have triggered the ‘crisis’ we are now in. If I suggested we lost control of our borders, that was not my intention. Our political elite gave control away, as ROM rightly suggests. The EU ref was in no small part a reaction to that ‘signing stuff’ away that you talk about. MKing’s advice to Blair shows just how indifferent this elite was to some of the policy consequences. On The Free Climber’s point he cleverly conflates right to enter and right to residency. On the latter it is indisputable that the projected numbers were either deliberately massaged down, or woefully inadequately modelled. As for racism. That is a fair charge on some of the posters I have seen that were used in the campaign. As for laziness. Again guilty. I’m with WB Yeats on this...the line from The Second Coming...the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity..I guess I could be racist. My wife is Chinese, her father a refugee from Mao’s brutal version of Communusm. Two lovely key kids.

In reply to john yates:

How can you even say that we can’t opt opt out when we are leaving ? That’s ridiculous, we could always leave these treaties and eventually we did, we were never forced by the EU to do anything.


No, they did not give any control away, they simply used the control that we’ve always had to have free movement. And now we are using the same control that we’ve always had to shut the doors.

This “take back control” argument is nonsensical. We’ve always had control the question is how do we use it.

The irony is that we’ve probably not gained any control, we’ve just relinquished it. We’ll get the illusion of control but as one country alone, we don’t have much bargaining power and probably will have to accept whatever the big powers such as the EU, US, or China want, or face economic isolation and relative decline.

That is strikingky obvious in the current EU negotiations.
And now we get the likes of Boris and Jacob, who have been telling us during the campaign in grandiloquent speeches how we would “take back control” and have our “Independence Day”, who are now whinning about us becoming a vassal state of the EU... you couldn’t make it up really.

In reply to RomTheBear:

In acceding to Directive 2004/58/EC - http://bit.ly/2tRwnVC

our ruling classes agreed to the primacy of EU citizenship - "Citizenship of the Union confers on every citizen of the Union a primary and individual right to move and reside
freely within the territory of the Member States."

Once transition was over, an EU citizen did not need a passport to enter the UK.

Furthermore

"The free movement of persons constitutes one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market, which comprises an area without internal frontiers, in which freedom is ensured'

So, as the Directive says - the internal market is 'without frontiers' and that, I assume, is what the "take back control" slogan is meant to signify.

My point is simply that these decisions are probably better made at the level the sovereign state, not a supranational body......unless that body has the overwhelming support of its diverse populations, which in the case of the EU is not assured.

At the risk of contradicting myself, that would probably make me a leaver, as leaving would be the only way to achieve that goal. One would then have to weigh up the other benefits of remaining in the EU to come to a balanced view.

The reality is, however, that the other member states have put us in the position that the only way to restrict EU migration is to leave the EU. And all this because of a directive (hence no debate in the House) rather than a Treaty or Treaty change.

In reply to john yates:


I presume you're referring to me there, although why you would use the domain name of our old website when my name is clear for all to see above each of my posts is another one of life's great mysteries. In any case you're talking bollox again, which to be honest comes as no surprise by now.

Nobody has ever suggested that right to enter has any relevance to any of this discussion. Presumably you wouldn't be in favour of making it hard for EU nationals to enter the UK as tourists, with reciprocal difficulties for UK citizens to holiday in the rest of the EU? So right to enter is not relevant, and we're all talking about the right to live and work in a different European country, which pretty much is what residency means.

In reply to john arran:

Right to residency is treated differently (rightly so) to right to enter......under the directive comes we have this rule:

A right of permanent residence should therefore be laid down for all Union citizens and their family members who have resided in the host Member State in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Directive during a continuous period of five years without
becoming subject to an expulsion measure....

There are some various conditions - chiefly surrounding 'unreasonable burden' - and the rights apply also to families and family members who are non EU.

In reply to john yates:

Are you expecting me to disagree with any of that?

In reply to john yates:
Both sides were/are represented by elites.
Freedom of movement,if it goes,betrays the younger generation imo.
I find it very peculiar that free market thinkers/libertarian types who support leaving the EU can tolerate the concept of this freedom being taken away.

In reply to john yates:










I respectfully disagree.

I think you are just confused as to how directives are passed. They are presented by the commission to the EU parliament AND to the EU council, which represents the government of each member states, and the council needs to approve at QMV or unanimity. In the case of granting new rights to EU citizens, unanimity is required.

Not only that, but of course the directives have to be be within the scope and compliant with the EU treaties.

There are effectively at least three layers of democratic accountability. To get a directive through is pretty f*cking hard and requires a lot of compromise and consensus between member states. (Which explains why the EU is extremely slow at everything)


In the case of the directive you quoted, each member state, including the UK, was in favour, and wouldn’t have gone through without every country agreeing.
Historically the U.K. government has been on the winning side of those votes 97% of the time, last time I checked. One can hardly say laws were forced on us.

Now whether there is a debate in the member state parliament on any directives is up to that member state own government, and constitutional requirements.

I don’t know if there was any debate in the U.K. parliament on that specfic directive, but if there wasn’t, that is simply because the U.K. government at the time did not bother putting it on the agenda.

May I point out that this won’t change when we leave the EU, the U.K. government will still negotiate stuff with other countries, using their royal prerogative and then ask parliament later to implement it when the deal is already sealed. Pretty much what they doing now with the brexit negotiations.
Except the situation will be even more undemocratic than it is now, because you won’t have this second layer of democratic accountability provided by the EU parliament.

I think that many people in the UK simply misunderstand how the EU works. This is not a supranational state forcing anything on us, it’s pretty much still no more than a democratic platform for a bunch of countries to find consensus and compromise and cooperate through a democratic process, instead of doing it through bargaining, threat, and coercion, which is what happened in the past with disastrous consequences.

Now I understand the argument of some than the EU seemed to be moving toward a supranational state, but not only this wasn’t happening anywhere else than in the wet dreams of a few federalists, but it simply wouldn’t have happened as long as we did not want it.

The irony is that with the U.K. leaving, the prospect of a supranational EU state, the nightmare of the eurosceptics, actually has a chance to become reality...

In reply to RomTheBear:

We could carry on going round in circles. I know how a Directive is passed. While you are technically correct to say that the Council (Heads of State) and the European Parliament (MEPs elected in huge regions with dismal turnouts) are 'democratic', the reality is that they are far removed from the lives of voters. Again, technically, the UK Parliament has a role in 'transposing' these directives into domestic legislation, but, more often than not these directives are rubber stamped (or not stamped at all - having worked in the office of a former Foreign Office Minister and seen how these things just slip through the Ministerial net). Where a policy change with such significant potential impact as the free movement directive goes through with no debate in our public forums ......it fuels the kind of resentment and anger that was expressed in the leave vote. Having been close to three EU election campaigns, but not the referendum, it was clear in 2004 that migration was the number one issue by a country mile - the private opinion polls and focus groups that I saw during that time (carried out by YouGov) were quite shocking....and, despite the success of UKIP in 2004, knocking the LibDems into fourth place and getting 12 MEPs elected....the major parties just turned a blind eye to the issue and let the problem fester. I don't blame the EU for that. I just think our elected representatives were neglectful - especially Labour in its northern heartlands. We are paying the price now.
You may well be right about what the future holds. Others like Duncan may be right that we are falling and haven't yet hit bottom. But those who voted leave are our fellow citizens. Hurling abuse at them, calling them zealots and racists, wont stop us hitting the ground with a thud. Personally I am an optimist and believe in the goodness and resilience of the British people - and that we can make a success of this. Not a popular view I suspect around these parts, but that's the nature of debate.

In reply to john yates:

So you agree that the issue has nothing to do with the process of approving directives in the EU, it has to do with the way, in the UK, that governments used their prerogative in the EU council to do whatever they wanted without really bothering about what people thought. But then again that's the power they are given through their majority in Parliament.

And that doesn't change one bit when we are out of the EU. In fact, as I explained, it gets worse, and this is particularly obvious with the current Brexit negotiations, negotiated behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms by a minority government and with a totally useless parliament which will be given a meaningless vote at the end.

Reading your response it seems to me that you fundamentally agree that the EU was the scapegoat for many things. And that's the big problem, really, killing the scapegoat doesn't resolve the fundamental problem, all we've done is killing our supply of goat milk, for no reason. And don't worry, those responsible will probably find another scapegoat to blame.

And pointing this out is not being disrespectful or abusive to leave voters. I think many of them are starting to see they were betrayed and manipulated. And we may well end up leaving the EU with remain/leave at 60/40 % in the polls. Once again another screw up where people end up getting the opposite of what they want.


Absolutely agree.


Optimism and "Belief in the goodness and resilience of the British people" cannot be a substitute for reality, and to be honest, I find it a bit naive.
The fact is that this country managed somehow to be a lot poorer and weaker than its European neighbours for decades, before we joined the EU. The historical precedent of having our trade dictated by our neighbours doesn't really convince me that the "goodness and resilience of the British people" is enough, especially as the situation this time will be relatively worse than it was post war, as the UK is much more insignificant alone on the global stage than it was before.

Long term, I'm sure the UK will be fine, in 40 years we could probably have rebuilt our relationship with the EU, or even rejoined out of necessity, who knows, but even then we'd just have wasted a generation.

In reply to RomTheBear:
We have not left yet.
Article 50 can be revoked
Terms of the deal are to be debated in Parliament ( both chambers) pre March ,2019 in practice a random date anyway now.
Representative democracy is thankfully flexing its muscles a bit and thats befor a look at the Irish question as well.
Recent polls are showing a shift towards remain as well.
Nothing written in stone yet.

In reply to racodemisa:







True, but I think that at this point the most likely scenario remains that we leave the EU, even with a majority against it in the polls, simply because the political cost of reversing the decision is higher than simply letting it happen, even if people didn't really want it in the end.

In reply to john yates:
On the issue freedom of movement, you are right to point out that this was shaped without any proper debate in the UK, government just pushed for whatever they wanted or whatever they had in their manifesto.

May I point out that this has not changed, we are in the process or radically altering our citizenship and immigration polices, which will have a enormous impact on our society, families, and individuals for generations to come.
And frankly, again, there as been almost no debate whatsoever. We don't even know if there is really a majority in this country to end freedom of movement altogether, there has been no proper rational debate on this. But the government will negotiate something with the EU and we will swallow whatever serves their vested interest.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think the cost of leaving would be way higher than the "political cost" (to whom of importance?) of staying. Besides, there is an enormous Euro-political cost to leaving.

In reply to John Stainforth:

Absolutely true, but the tactical interests of those ruling us are not always aligned with the strategic interests of the country.

In reply to RomTheBear:
I agree.
A tricky tight rope to walk for all.
We may leave lock stock and barrel in the end. But its good actually how we leave is in Pariiament's hands more.
We shall see.

In reply to racodemisa:





If we were to leave lock stock and barrel we would be lock stock and stuffed. We can't stop trading and dealing with the countries of Europe. I'm sure some Brexit types believe that we can have a "clean break" or some such nonsense but it's a bit like saying you are going to continue to drive your car but have a clean break from using the roads. The whole Brexit thing is either an oxymoron or a catastrophe

In reply to john yates:


Unemployment figures are not to be trusted as they come from the numbers of people claiming benefits, which is not the same as the number of people unemployed.

In reply to Skip:

This isn't true. The claimant count is measured and no doubt quoted when convenient by politicians, but the UK has a legal duty as an EU member to conduct a Labour Force Survey which is not the same thing.

In reply to Wil Treasure:


Are all the homeless, and those of NFA accounted for?

Anyway I'd never heard of the Labour Force Survey, so I looked it up, and perhaps unsurprisingly it's far from comprehensive. Only half a million are questioned, some may refuse to answer. I have never been approached.

In reply to Skip:


These are basic problems with any data collection method. This does ask a surprisingly large sample, but still with a reasonable error margin. I was just pointing out that "JSA" and "unemployed" are measured separately. I have no idea if the homeless or NFA are accounted for.

In reply to john yates:
Well if unemployment is at an all time low then hoofing out lots of eastern europeans isn't going to creation millions of Jobs is it. It will increase inflation though so you'd better hope wage growth springs back to life else everyone gets poorer again.



Is there anyone here who actually thinks Brexit will make them richer? And has reasoning to support that.

In reply to wbo:


I don't think Nigel or Boris hang out here. And their reasoning is unlikely to be applicable to many others.

In reply to john arran:

Fascinating piece - in the light of the cliff edge metaphor - by Wolfgang Munchau in the Financial Times http://on.ft.com/2yWS08E (warning - probably a pay wall). He puts Brexit in a very different perspective and shows that, contrary to a common misunderstanding, the EU does not hold all the cards when it comes to the future. He argues cyclical recovery is masking deep existential problems within the EU. "Large and non-decreasing financial imbalances between member states; weak banking systems; in-built pro-cyclical fiscal policies that exacerbate boom and bust; inability to deal with asymmetric shocks; and most important of all a lack of trust." So how will this be resolved? Not by a political process, he argues – but by another crisis and "one that threatens the wealth of the northern creditor nations." This, he says..." is the real cliff edge that Europe faces. Not Brexit."

In reply to john yates: you realise of course that you can write exactly the same for the UK and the assymetric relationship between the southeast and the rest of the country. Which Brexit will do nothing to change

In reply to john yates:

Interesting. How do you think that helps our negotiating position?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


It seems logical that an economically unstable EU wouldn't actually relish the loss of its largest export market. Any deal that reduces the amount of trade between UK and EU hurts both sides.

Rom will be along in a moment to remind us that this is a political negotiation, not an economic one, and any number of posters will point out that we have relatively more to lose by a drop in trade and do we go round in circles.

But this is an absolutist point, not a relativistic one, whether you agree it's true or not.

Barnier's interview in the Guardian today "there will be no special deal for the City of London!" pretty much invites a negotiation on that very issue. It's a specific isolation of a key concession they know we want and which, owing to the nature of capital markets, they'll have to concede (up to a point). Welcome to the grandstanding phase of the next stage of the negotiations.

In reply to BnB:




Do you think an economically stable eu would relish the loss of its largest export market? Of course it wouldn’t. And we do still have more to lose. But to go back to the comment you responded to, how does the eu being unstable (according to Munchau) help us? If we have to get 27 countries to agree to a deal it’s going to be harder to get a good deal out them if they’re not in a “happy place”.


Yes, it’s part of the negotiations. But passporting is tricky if you’re out of the single market. Look at the trouble Switzerland has had, they’ve had this problem for years, their banks have had to locate their largest offices outside their 'home' country - mostly in London (UBS, Credit Suisse etc.). So what are we going to concede in order to get a deal?

In reply to john yates:

Bit slow of the mark for the FT.

There was a piece in the Economist a few days before hand talking about this issue...and it relates to the Euro .Basically saying that structural reforms to the Euro need to be made now whilst the economies are recovering and before the next down turn.

In reply to john yates:

I'm concerned more with the potential cliff edge that the UK faces than any problems faced by the euro zone TBH.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Is this true? A little while ago evan davis had a programme with a rep. from one of the Swiss banks on and she said the hqs that are located outside Switzerland have skeleton staff and primarily on the legal side. Plus most trading doesn't involved passporting anyway. The truth will perhaps sit in the middle, although being Swiss she had no reason not to tell the truth on their banking position.

In reply to john yates:


Of course not. The EU will be a less effective union without the UK, just as the UK is a less effective country without the EU.

Rather than try to make the EU better and more effective for everyone, we've decided to make this part of the world a bit shittier for everyone.

In reply to summo:


Which bank? Your half-remembered anecdotes are fascinating but unreliable.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKL8N1J33Z...

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I remember just fine thank you. You can call it half remembered if it helps your argument. Which bank, who knows, a Swiss one. I wasn't taking notes and can't be bothered trawling through all his programmes just for you.

In reply to BnB:


Not really, I doubt anyone making anything but the angriest most simplistic arguments for or against brexit actually believes it's all about one thing or another, or that the most extreme outcomes are the most likely. I do think it's important to understand though that they are quite possible and there are influential cheerleaders for them.


Or it's a line in the sand they will not cross, a warning to bring reasonable expectations to the table and manage expectations at home. It's not like they don't have form meaning what they say and saying what they mean in negotiations then simply waiting for the other, weaker party to capitulate. Again, the reality is likely to fall somewhere between the two extreme cases but none the less, wherever we eventually meet it'll be to London's detriment (probably also the EU's though not Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris). How that plays out for the rest of the UK is a domestic decision but we've little cause to hope for anything but more of the same, rebuilding London to the detriment of 'the regions'.
jk

In reply to summo:


Fair enough, you can't remember. But you do remember that the rep from a bank you can't remember is saying that a staff of 5400 is a skeleton staff.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Where did I or the programme say 5400? You got an abottcus at work there.

I do like how many look many far left people (Not specifically you) who normally hate the banks, are now using banks as part of their argument. Cake and eat it.

In reply to summo:



Credit Suisse (a Swiss bank, like we were discussing) has about 5400 staff in London, you claim that your half-remembered Swiss bank rep said the offices outside Switzerland had skeleton staff. So 5400 must be a skeleton staff.

The rest of your post is drivel aimed at someone else.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


So glad you agree I didn't say she worked for credit Suisse and I didn't say 5400 was skeleton staff. How the banking sector settles will entirely depends on the negotiation, the outcome of which no one knows. As with anything now for the next 100 years, Brexit will be the excuse or blame for anything. It's not that London is simply becoming too expensive for businesses and their staff to operate, but Brexit's fault. I can imagine lots of companies carry out actions which won't please work force or customers and blaming Brexit. Some maybe justified others not, but at present without a deal it's speculation.

In reply to summo:


So what was the point of your half-remembered story about the Swiss bank rep saying that Swiss banks in London only had a skeleton staff? But I'm glad you accept it is stupid to say 5400 staff are skeleton (perhaps you didn't bother to read the first piece I linked, the figure was in there).

And yes, I'm sure you can imagine lots of things. You can imagine that there will be no relocations due to brexit. Indeed you can imagine that there will be no downside to brexit at all.

In reply to john yates:

This is a non-sequiter. Brexit has still not been carried out, so it is impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of Brexit.

In reply to BnB:


This misunderstands the FT article linked to. This point of the article was precisely that things are going well for the EU and now would be a good time to introduce the necessary reforms to the Eurozone. But because things are going well there is no pressure to make the necessary hard decisions. ("The cyclical economic recovery has deflected attention away from these issues, but has not resolved any of them.")

If the eurozone sinks into another crisis before the end of the Brexit negotiations, that might provide the UK with an opportunity but two important things stand in the way. First, the last time David Cameron tried that, Germany, France and Brussels saw it as an awkward Britain trying to exploit the eurozone crisis to reinforce British exceptionalism and dug their heels in. Second, in the event of a eurozone crisis the priority in Brussels will be maintaining the integrity of the eurozone and the single market. They are just as likely to circle the wagons and become even more intransigent than they are to offer concessions.


As JKarran has noted, Barnier's redlines have so far been more durablle than Davis'. That said, even if they do give ground on financial services its hard to see how they would allow passporting without regulatory convergence which would leave the UK as a rule-taker on financial services which is one of the areas where I would expect the UK to want more independence fro Brussels. The UK may well decide that its not worth it.

In reply to BnB:


careful - nobody is losing access to anything; it will just make access to the UK market potentially more awkward, and reduce sales a little through the effect of wto tariffs (and maybe a lot due to those amongst the 52% of the population who think the UK is bloody brilliant who drivw bmw's / mercs etc trading them in for jags / Land Rovers etc.... )

A bit tongue in cheek, but if i worked in a car plant in sunderland, i'd be a bloody sight more worried about my medium term prospects than if i worked in a car plant in Stuttgart or its environs....(or Umgebung, i suppose...). nissan sunderland only exists to supply the EU, and there are fairly constant cries from Renault to transfer production to their underutilised plants in France).

In reply to Ian W:

then they will be worried about they voted for - there will be some justice if they are the first to suffer what they inflict on the rest of us

In reply to JohnWoodrow:

What is a non sequitur? There were predictions by many that if we voted for Brexit we would fall off a cliff. We did vote for Brexit. And we didn’t fall off a cliff. There is a clear logic to that. My initial point was whether those who had screamed loudest about economic and political apocalypse, if such a vote happened, might now admit they were just a little bit hysterical. The tone of this long thread would suggest the opposite. If anything the whining seems louder than ever. It is as if some people want us to fall off the cliff so they can gleefully shout ‘I told you so’ as we accelerate towards the ground. Evening all.

In reply to john yates:

If Sterling hadn't lost 15% or more of its value, and if inflation wasn't at its highest rate for years, and rising, I might have been tempted to agree with you.

But then I remembered we haven't left yet.

To argue that little has changed yet, and that little is likely to change once we leave, shows an impressive level of denial.

In reply to john arran:

ONS first quarter after Brexit vote noted ‘no major loss of confidence’ and some ‘indications of strength’. So officially, no falling off a cliff. And no denial. U.K. economy beset by problems. It always is. Brexit may worsen some and relieve others. Eurozone beset by existential problems of a different order, with banking union the trigger. Bob Hughes bob on the money there. Being outside could be an asset. Certainly rise of euro fascism much more threatening than the Cranks and Gadflies in UKIP, more so should the next crash split the eurozone asunder. Only Trump seems to have got an economic bounce; unless you count the Chinese communist state as proto capitalist..but therein lies the other major threat. Much, much more troubling than Trump. At least US voters can get rid of him. Communists and Commissioners are not so easily removed.

In reply to john yates:

Who mentioned a cliff anyway? Sounds like a straw man to me. I don't recall it being a prediction. Rather generally bad trends all round were predicted, which we are seeing.

In reply to

OECD predicted it would be like ‘a natural dusaster’ Parallels with earthquakes and Tsunami. Close to 90% of 600 economists polled predicted recession...hence Gove’s expert jibe. Straw man? Iron man? Disaster was predicted. And yes, it could still happen. As someone wrote earlier you could imagine that Brexit will have no effect. equally , you could, and many experts did, imagine we would suffer immediate economic collapse. It didn’t happen. They were wrong. And instead now talk loosely of ’generally bad trends’ .

In reply to john yates:


Indeed...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/brexit-vote-leaves-uk-on-b...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/18/imf-says-brexit-would-trig...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-impact-recession-eu-...

In reply to john yates:

What are you hoping to gain from trying to convince people that black was white? How is it in the UK's interest to deny that Sterling was only saved by a huge QE injection (making us all poorer), and even then still fell very significantly in value (making us all poorer still)?

In reply to john arran:

This sort of thing you mean?

The Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast, soon to be revised, was that the government would have to borrow £58.3bn this year to plug the gap between its income from taxes and its spending (the deficit). That would be £12.5bn more than last year. But now it looks like it will come in well below that - so that if the deficit grows it will not be by much.

Better then look at debt. If you strip out the Bank of England borrowing artificially accumulated through quantitative easing, you get a net debt of £1,632bn. While that's grown by £46.1bn, the economy's grown faster - meaning that as a percentage of the economy (GDP) it's shrinking.

And that means it's becoming more manageable, not less.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42063098

What are you hoping to gain from trying to convince people that everything is bad?

In reply to Big Ger:

You're putting words into people's mouths again, as I said nothing about everything being bad. The thread is about falling off cliff edges -or not, if you believe the OP's attempt at rewriting history - and in July last year the pound fell off a cliff edge.
http://www.macrotrends.net/2549/pound-dollar-exchange-rate-historical-chart

Quoting selectively culled reports of occasional non-negative outcomes does nothing to change the reality of the cliff edge after the referendum. Almost all experts predicted it, and it happened. Almost all experts are still predicting substantial economic woes if Brexit happens in anything but name only, and I see no reason to think they will not be similarly correct about that too. Apart from wishful thinking I've seen almost no arguments to suggest otherwise.

In reply to john arran:

Very strange. I am not denying a collapse in Sterling post the Brexit vote. The graphs indicate very much a cliff edge response. Indeed so fast and sharp was the response that investigations were held into the algorithmic basis to the multi-trillion dollar daily trading network. My point is the pundits were talking immediate recession. The fall in Sterling - or any currency - was/is affected by many factors and the cyclical upturn in the euro and the Trump bounce played a part. It is widely accepted in the markets that Sterling is now undervalued. If I or anyone else for that matter knew for certain what happens next I would be a wealthy man. QE, which pre/dated the vote served not to strengthen Sterling, as you claim, but to weaken it. It allowed interest rates to fall, bond yields to rise, and thus make the currency less attractive. It did not make us poorer either. It made us a more unequal society, changing a trend in the opposite directions: this chiefly due to missllocstion effects and subsequent asset inflation, mainly South East house prices. Sterling has sufffered bigger collapses in the past and recovered. And these were in a pre digital era. The ability for sterling to ‘float’....or, in this case dramatically sink, is an asset that the club med countries, and many in the north European countries ( think far right in Germany, Austria and Holland) creditor countries, would like to have. Instead very disparate economies with different needs are chained together, with fiscal and rate policies that just don’t add up. I’m not re writing history, just asking for a little humility from those who predicted full blown recession when something close to the opposite happened. Humility is not big on the list of done of the posters.

In reply to john arran:
UK Manufacturing order books at 30 year high. As someone who works with advanced manufacturing this is good news.

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/manufacturing-order-books-at-...

In reply to john yates:

So sterling did fall off a cliff but you're saying it wasn't due to the brexit vote? As someone said, you can imagine anything. And there was QE after the brexit vote https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/economic-growth/news/77895/ban...
And what is close to the opposite of a full blown recession? A boom. You're saying the economy is booming? Or perhaps we're just close to one.

In reply to Big Ger:
Were not alot of these scenarios based on the assumption that Article 50 would be invoked within weeks of a succesful result for the leave vote ?

In reply to Sir Chasm:
I live in central london.
I see growing number of offices up for rent and alot job vacancy signs in cafes and other services.
My feeling is alot of EU nationals have gone home and buisness is getting nervous. and relocating

In reply to john yates:



No they didn't. They said *economically* the response would be similar to a natural disaster. This has occurred (fall in currency, cut interest rates, more QE to stimulate the economy, reduced growth).

LOL

>Close to 90% of 600 economists polled predicted recession...hence Gove’s expert jibe.
Again clearly false as that line was given before the vote so could not possibly have been a reaction to there being no recession. There indeed wasn't a recession, no doubt in part due to the cut in rates etc. but growth has been very limited since.

More rubbish. No one was predicting economic collapse.

In reply to john yates:
I work in advanced manufacturing and yes the order books are very strong. Do you know why order books are very strong?

In reply to MG:



>
So, close to 90% of "experts" were wrong.

In reply to neilh:

Export orders or domestic, or both?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No. It appears to be (another) completely bullshit claim. What appears to have been correctly predicted is damage to the UK economy over 5 years
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/75538...

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Export...which is what drives most UK manufacturing

In reply to MG:

Did "close to 90% of economists polled predict recession" (your words)

Has a recession happened?

Are your saying that your claim was wrong?

In reply to Postmanpat:




No. No. Have your stopped beating your wife?

In reply to Postmanpat:

The summary of predictions is below. They are basically correct.

"Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson said the survey, which saw 88% of economists saying that Brexit would hinder Britain’s growth prospects, revealed a rare near consensus within the profession.

“For a profession known to agree about little, it is pretty remarkable to see this degree of consensus about anything,” he said.

“It no doubt reflects the level of agreement among many economists about the benefits of free trade and the costs of uncertainty for economic growth.”

A majority of participants (57%) also said that Brexit could cut GDP by more than 3% over the next five years. Only 5% of economists thought there would be a positive impact from leaving the EU.

More than 70% said leaving the EU would have a negative impact on growth for up to two decades.

Members of the Royal Economic Society and the Society of Business Economists took part in the poll.

“Loss of access to the single market” (67%) and “increased uncertainty leading to reduced investment” (66%) were cited as the main reasons for why the UK would be damaged by a vote to leave by economists."

In reply to MG:

It's very simple. You made a false claim that "close to 90% of economists polled predicted recession". Now you've corrected your mistake we can move on.

Can you produce evidence to show that most brexiteers believed that the transition would not undermine the growth rate of the economy?

In reply to Postmanpat:


What!? Not I didn't claim that. In fact I was the one disputing that claim.

In reply to MG:


Fair enough. Confused by the font.

In reply to Postmanpat:
So you now agree John Yates is a hypocritical liar?

In reply to Postmanpat:


That was John Yates' claim. Perhaps you should correct your mistake (and him).


I doubt it. Can you produce evidence to show most brexiteers thought sterling would fall off a cliff (to quote Mr Yates) after the vote?

In reply to MG:


No, may have exaggerated his case (forsooth! On UKC?!) . I've not been following the thread very closely.

It depends, of course, which polls of experts you look at : "72% of economists in a Bloomberg poll immediately after the EU referendum vote predicted that there would be a recession in 2016 or 2017. In a Royal Economic Society survey of economists, 90% said there would be a short-term loss associated with Brexit."

So, let's just say that the 72% were wrong.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

His centrl argument was right.

>
Can you produce evidence to the contrary? It's a pretty basic assumption that currencies move to reflect a change in outlook. So, given that there was obviously going to be a period of uncertainly whilst brexit is negotiated it was pretty obvious that sterling would fall. I don't remember much opposition to this idea but maybe you do.

In reply to john yates:


I can imagine a squirrel with the head of a mackerel. I can't make it happen.


I don't recall many if any predictions of immediate economic collapse. I remember lots of predictions of a shock, perhaps tipping us back into recession for a while after the vote then the longer term trend being defined by decisions we're still making (well, accepting rather than making) though almost all predictions for short/medium term are below the predictions for 'remain'. The shock happened, sterling took a big hit, a lot of quantitative easing happened, again, exports grew a bit and with them profit for a while before inflation hit those who import materials/components/services and the population proved more willing to hit their credit cards than expected, perhaps buoyed by their 'victory' perhaps lulled by cheap QE funded credit. It's hard to describe that as an economy more resilient than expected since most of it simply defers problems but we didn't dip back into recession. We're not living the second 'real' part yet, give it a decade (another one I can't afford to waste).
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


No it wasn't.


So you can't produce the evidence.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
>
Oh yes it was...


I didn't make the claim. I can certainly find anecdotal evidence from leaver economists like Bootle. Can you?

In reply to Postmanpat:

How about we say 72% were somewhat too negative about the immediate economic effect in terms of growth but were right about 1) There being a loss of growth 2) currency effects 3) the need to stimulate the economy 4) jobs moving to Europe etc. etc.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You mean the 90% of economists that you said was a "false claim"?


No, i asked it to suggest that "Can you produce evidence to show that most brexiteers believed that the transition would not undermine the growth rate of the economy?" is a silly question.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

>
No.


The answer is that some did and some didn't. But it's a perfectly reasonable and entirely relevant question in the context of a discussion about whether economists' forecasts were right or wrong. One might think that having some evidence for what those forecasts were is well, kind of, useful, no?

In reply to Postmanpat:



You didn't ask about most economists. You asked "Can you produce evidence to show that most brexiteers believed that the transition would not undermine the growth rate of the economy?", now I'm sure some brexiteers were economists but "most brexiteers" (your first question) and "economists" are not synonymous.

In reply to MG:

72% were wrong about there being a recession.

1) They correctly predicted a loss of growth but so did a significant number of brexiteer economists although outliers such as Minford painted an unrealistically rosy picture of transition.

2)The direction of the currency in the wake of a leave vote was agreed even by most brexiteer economists: Bootle, Minford, Lea, Jefferys. The main difference was that they didn't regard sterlings fall as a negative.

3) No. The jury is still very much out on whether Carney needed to cut rates .

4) Not sure. To an extent but was it as bad as some forecast? What were the forecasts and what are the numbers?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Lol,you're having a larf, right? Rolls eyes....

In reply to Postmanpat:


I sceptical about even this claim as I can't see the original poll and suspect it either made up or misreported. The only reference I can find to it is from a leave campaigner who is probably a liar, and this which gives little information
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/brexit-to-halt-u-k-s-gro...

In reply to MG:

You mean Lillico? Well nobody challenged him in a roundtable discussion and the headline you link suggests the majority of economists polled were forecasting a recession.

But hey, if you think he is "probably a liar" no doubt you're right. You've all gone mad. I'll leave you to it.

In reply to Postmanpat:




no you won't!

no one *ever* 'leaves anyone to it' where brexit is concerned...!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




Sad but true.....

In reply to Postmanpat:

"welcome to the Hotel Cali-brexit-ia..."

In reply to jkarran:

How many decades have you already wasted, and why?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

This is more fun than wife beating. A Merry Christmas All.

In reply to john yates:

'tis the season of good cheer https://news.sky.com/story/imf-urges-early-brexit-transition-deal-in-annual...

In reply to john arran:


You really are strange, accusing someone of only seeing the negative is not "putting words in their mouths, but noting their tendencies. (I did paraphrase your statement though, so doesn't that mean, in your warped perspectives, you were putting words in john yates' mouth?)

The thread is about falling off cliff edges -or not, if you believe the OP's attempt at rewriting history - and in July last year the pound fell off a cliff edge.


Do you actually read charts you post?

Going by your chart, the pound had a relatively minor fall when compered to historical figures.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong though.