How much is the Referendum Campaign influencing you? NEW POLL.

[Lincoln Imp]

If you think the IMF have been reliable in the past and on that basis you'll go with what they say in the future then it stands to reason that you place a heavy weighting of trust in those economists that wrote the reports and made those forecasts. People like Ashoka Mody for instance who wrote last week:

"...the arguments that leaving the EU would cause permanent damage to the UK are not supported by evidence"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...c-consensus-on-brexit-is-flawed-a7057306.html

By your own criteria, he's one of the men you look to for informed opinions and you have to believe that he could well be right this time. You can't have it both ways.

If there are ten respected economists saying one thing and one respected economist saying another then it seems reasonable to take the majority view, surely?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

There was one prominent Brexiter on here who said he NEVER took any notice of forecasts but relied entirely on his gut instinct. This certainly explained some of his posts. A common Leavers debating technique on here is to claim that Remainers say something that they don't, and then furiously demolish it. "D'oh! Gutless Remainers say we can't trade with the EU without accepting free movement." was still being repeated on a referendum thread quite recently.

Perhaps both sides should keep to the issues and continue our friendly discussion ? I actually don't care 'what one prominent Brexiter said' any more than what one prominent Remainer might have said. Neither represent the important issue at hand so neither should be used as a reason to rubbish the other side. Play the ball not the man.

 

[Two Professors]

If there are ten respected economists saying one thing and one respected economist saying another then it seems reasonable to take the majority view, surely?

So if we get 10 people on here who say you're a carrot-crunching village idiot,and 1 person who says you're not,you accept the majority verdict?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Why the hell would it be an Orwelian nightmare!?

It is a regional superpower where the good of the whole is the most important thing. We have no idea of the nature of the decisions that will be taken on our behalf in the future. The good of Europe will drive these decisions and not the good of our little corner of Europe.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Yes? Should we not do and make decisions that are in the best interests of the whole bloody planet? It is exactly that self-serving ignorant attitude that led to the out of control global warming and the banking crisis and who knows how many other disasters. Is it not time we started considering the impact of our actions outside of just our little corner of Europe?

I'm sorry you think I am ignorant.. I do not think that you are ignorant just a little over-aggressive. I believe in friendly co-operation with other nation states and think that trying to create a vast empire is a mistake. I lived overseas for many years and know the value of engaging with other cultures. Looking after the interests of the UK does not mean disengaging from the interests of the planet. In fact we have a lot to offer on these issues, not least the services of passionate people such as yourself. This does not mean we have to give up our sovereignty. My reference to George Orwell was a nod to Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Orwell predicted this development.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

So if we get 10 people on here who say you're a carrot-crunching village idiot,and 1 person who says you're not,you accept the majority verdict?

If they were respected vegetable analysts then I'm afraid I'd have to.

 

[5ways]

If you think the IMF have been reliable in the past and on that basis you'll go with what they say in the future then it stands to reason that you place a heavy weighting of trust in those economists that wrote the reports and made those forecasts. People like Ashoka Mody for instance who wrote last week:

"...the arguments that leaving the EU would cause permanent damage to the UK are not supported by evidence"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...c-consensus-on-brexit-is-flawed-a7057306.html

By your own criteria, he's one of the men you look to for informed opinions and you have to believe that he could well be right this time. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I can take what he says on board, will Brexiteers do the same for the 90% who hold the opposite view? Which is, as the actual sitting head of the IMF says is "bad, to very bad"?

 

[yxee]

Yes? Should we not do and make decisions that are in the best interests of the whole bloody planet? It is exactly that self-serving ignorant attitude that led to the out of control global warming and the banking crisis and who knows how many other disasters. Is it not time we started considering the impact of our actions outside of just our little corner of Europe?

It all sounds very naive to me. Immigration is not some kind of cure for mankind's woes, it puts strain on the UK and will leave behind a devastating shortage of manpower in the countries where people are leaving. Google "brain drain".

Do we not run the risk of not co-operating with other countries if we wall ourselves off just as much as becoming an Orwellian nightmare if we leave?

Why do you say risk? It's not like we're going to flip a coin. Of course we're going to cooperate. NATO is our key defensive partnership, but the EU. The UN is the key global political organisation, not the EU. There are other worldwide bodies that we should remain a part of because they serve a clear function. The EU is a just trading bloc that randomly became a political multinational conglomerate without anyone really wanting it to be.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I can take what he says on board, will Brexiteers do the same for the 90% who hold the opposite view? Which is, as the actual sitting head of the IMF says is "bad, to very bad"?

Innit. Some of those who want to leave the EU are taking a climate change denier stance on bodies of evidence. Of course it is true that no one knows exactly what is going to happen in the future. That is a truism. But at some point you have to look at the body evidence and see what the overwhelming majority of it points to. I find it interesting when Economists, or anyone else for that matter, makes the case that we will be better off outside the EU, or, at least if not better off, the same. That is the kind of argument that I would like to hear and it would be something that I think would swing the vote to Leave. The fact is though there isn't anyone really making that case. I think the Leavers know that so disparage all predictions as hokum. Like climate change deniers. Which is interesting as the bloke who made Brexit:The Movie previous highlights include documentaries denying climate change.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's not gospel and I know the difference between a fact and a forecast. The way I see it is 9/10 forecasters are predicting rain tomorrow. I decide to bring a brolly. The Brexiteer watching decries the consensus "they said it was going to rain today, and it's sunny!" therefore decides against a umbrella. He goes out and gets soaked.

What do you mean any evidence that these organisations are more likely to be right this time? You want me to go through the *deep breath* IMF, OECD, LSE, Treasury, OBR, IFS, NIESR and so on and find out their percentage prediction hit-rate? If you want to talk about willfully ignorant would you apply the same standard here, of total and complete accuracy, to any other part of your life?

If you want to argue they are wrong, you need evidence to do so. You need your own reports, you need your own economists. But they do not exist - so what else can be done? Willful, purposeful ignorance. Gove couldn't do it yesterday so he said to the effect of "i think we're tired of hearing from experts". I'd get tired of it too if they all, overwhelmingly, denounced my position. Although rather than say, simply, "they might be wrong so let's take the plunge" I might consider changing my position.

Your use of language suggests otherwise there are numerous examples where you have presented forecasts as certainties.

Would you still decide to take a brolly if the forecasters were continually proved wrong? Not only wrong but couldn't predict rain even when dark storm clouds were directly overhead. Or only accurately forecast 11 out of 88 storms? This Brexiteer doesn't believe something just because there is a consensus view. He does believe evidence of a proven track record is a necessary component in establishing the credibility of someone's forecasts. Economists predictions are nearer to people using seaweed to forecast weather than the met office variety.

I would have thought someone who holds economists predictions in such high regard would have at least established their credibility and reliability before doing so. I don't require a record of total or complete accuracy, perhaps 75 % or even 51% as a start?

Yes that's right I need reports from people who I have argued are doing little more than sticking a wet finger in the wind... Even after discounting possible bias, vested interests, funding. My evidence they are very likely to be wrong is their poor track record combined with the unique nature of a Brexit increasing the number of unknowable variables, where there is no comparable model to work from. Plus of course their inability to make accurate economic predictions to any reasonably consistent level even over the short term. Also realising that having a consensus (groupthink) in economic forecasting doesn't increase the accuracy.


All of them – Between 2008 and 2012 only 11 out of 88 Recessions were predicted in the previous year.

http://voxeu.org/article/predicting-economic-turning-points

IMF - Five Years Of Glorious IMF "Hockey Stick" Comedy

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/five-years-glorious-imf-hockey-sticks

OECD - wrong in forecasting 39 out of the past 42 years

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/why-economists-cant-predict-the-future/

Your only evidence they are almost certainly right is there are lots of them. Having lots of people with a poor track record isn't very convincing and rather undermines the term expert. Think it's the third time I asked this … where is the evidence that they are more likely to be right this time?

 

[The Rivet]

Apparently a poll today put a figure of 22% against those that want to know more about Sovereignty! What?
What has our education system done? Or does that figure represent new arrivals with the right to vote? Either way. The thought that such an important concept is misunderstood by so many is shocking.

 

[GT49er]

Your claimed ability to tell me what I'm going to do is mildly grating. This week the Express carried a front page headline about 'EU Rapists' and I have always thought that once the tabloids started cranking up the immigrant hordes rhetoric the Leave campaign would prosper to the point where they could easily win this thing. I have mentioned her before but my sister in law, who I doubt has ever met a European immigrant apart from my son's wife and who has no interest in politics beyond her sweet village street, is now convinced that the England she knows will disappear under the feet of Bulgarian pickpockets within a couple of years. The campaign is working.

I dislike your invective, but I hope your conclusion is right.

 

[The Rivet]

Just before I sleep.
I make no apologies for bouncing it.

The whole EU edifice is rotten, like Fifa. If decisive action is not taken by us it is still only a matter of time. Europe, if you care to be widely read, is on the brink. Eastern European pacts against compulsory migrant quotas. Hungary openly saying Muslims are not compatible. Poland pissed at what they see as their Sovereignty being interfered with. Scandinavian countries being overwhelmed. France in economic and employment collapse. Marine La Pen popularity soaring. Italy on economic brink. Greece F*cd. Migrant chaos thanks to Merkel. Schengen area a complete joke. unaccountable/electable elites. Europe will collapse without our Money. My god I could go on.
Vote OUT of this mess!

 

[Buzzer]

If there are ten respected economists saying one thing and one respected economist saying another then it seems reasonable to take the majority view, surely?

No, quite the opposite. I suggest you read the link that I gave, the last paragraph especially:

" Since 2010, official agencies have repeatedly promised global recovery. The forecasts fail because they all disregard inconvenient evidence. Now, the official consensus on the economic costs of Brexit has crossed the line into groupthink. A numerical illusion is masquerading as a “fact.” And when those in authority distort facts, they also subvert the cause of democracy."

 

[Two Professors]

If they were respected vegetable analysts then I'm afraid I'd have to.

Typical Remain answer from the Cameron school of waffle.The subject matter was village idiots,not what vegetables they eat!

 

[5ways]

Your use of language suggests otherwise there are numerous examples where you have presented forecasts as certainties.

Would you still decide to take a brolly if the forecasters were continually proved wrong? Not only wrong but couldn't predict rain even when dark storm clouds were directly overhead. Or only accurately forecast 11 out of 88 storms? This Brexiteer doesn't believe something just because there is a consensus view. He does believe evidence of a proven track record is a necessary component in establishing the credibility of someone's forecasts. Economists predictions are nearer to people using seaweed to forecast weather than the met office variety.

I would have thought someone who holds economists predictions in such high regard would have at least established their credibility and reliability before doing so. I don't require a record of total or complete accuracy, perhaps 75 % or even 51% as a start?

Yes that's right I need reports from people who I have argued are doing little more than sticking a wet finger in the wind... Even after discounting possible bias, vested interests, funding. My evidence they are very likely to be wrong is their poor track record combined with the unique nature of a Brexit increasing the number of unknowable variables, where there is no comparable model to work from. Plus of course their inability to make accurate economic predictions to any reasonably consistent level even over the short term. Also realising that having a consensus (groupthink) in economic forecasting doesn't increase the accuracy.


All of them – Between 2008 and 2012 only 11 out of 88 Recessions were predicted in the previous year.

http://voxeu.org/article/predicting-economic-turning-points

IMF - Five Years Of Glorious IMF "Hockey Stick" Comedy

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/five-years-glorious-imf-hockey-sticks

OECD - wrong in forecasting 39 out of the past 42 years

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/why-economists-cant-predict-the-future/

Your only evidence they are almost certainly right is there are lots of them. Having lots of people with a poor track record isn't very convincing and rather undermines the term expert. Think it's the third time I asked this … where is the evidence that they are more likely to be right this time?

I'm not totally surprised that in Brexiteer La-La Land yes means no, up means down, and recession means growth. I wish I had it in my to look at 9/10 expert opinions and confidently bet the opposite way, but you are totally blinded by your in-built biases - not the collective effort of every respectable organisation on the planet.

Personally if you cannot accept that 9/10 people with expertise on economics and international political economy think Brexit is poison you will never be convinced. But to entertain the interesting notion that the fewer people believe something, the more true it is - there are plenty of similarities between Brexit and homoeopathy come to think of it - it's worth explaining why this is wrong.

Example A is the fall in the pound when Brexiteers rise in the poll. This happened when Boris announced his candidacy for PM, and recently when Leave's poll numbers improved.

Example B is : a “chilling effect” on the UK economy and Mark Carney says uncertainty is causing “a more marked slowdown”, but economists have rarely been so divided on how bad the second quarter is likely to be. Estimates range from a small acceleration of growth from the 0.4 per cent rate of the first quarter to a view that growth has already ground to a halt. What A and B tell us is that Brexit is already having an effect on confidence and investment, real indicators of the storms on the horizon.

Thirdly and most importantly this is not a total unknown. We know what will happen. We know that if we Brexit we will leave the European Union. It is not a total surprise like the 2008 crash was. The Queen said "why did no one see this coming?" We all see this coming, and because of that the predictions are much more accurate. Typically the macro conditions you have a rough idea of but you need data to trickle in to create your statistics. With Brexit you can calculuate these statistics prior to the fact because we know how much UK trade with the EU is worth - 43% of exports, linked to 3 million jobs and directly supporting 330k jobs in the UK, 48% of inward investment in the UK.

What is interesting is that Brexiteers know what they want yet have produced no post-Brexit plan about how to safeguard the UK economy.

With all this data already on hand and the expectation that the UK will lose some access to the EU market however temporary makes it much easier to make future predictions because the picture is already clear.

Finally if everyone is expecting a downturn there is more likely to be one. It will put people off buying houses and cars etc until the forecast is clearer.

It is not a stab in the dark. It is looking at what Brexiteer's want for this country and then simply applying that scenario to the status quo. Turns out it is poison, but increasingly the Brexit campaign has adopted the slogan 'ignorance is strength' so perhaps poison in upside-down world means sweet ambrosia.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b9685f0-1e87-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I'm not totally surprised that in Brexiteer La-La Land yes means no, up means down, and recession means growth. I wish I had it in my to look at 9/10 expert opinions and confidently bet the opposite way, but you are totally blinded by your in-built biases - not the collective effort of every respectable organisation on the planet.

Personally if you cannot accept that 9/10 people with expertise on economics and international political economy think Brexit is poison you will never be convinced. But to entertain the interesting notion that the fewer people believe something, the more true it is - there are plenty of similarities between Brexit and homoeopathy come to think of it - it's worth explaining why this is wrong.

Example A is the fall in the pound when Brexiteers rise in the poll. This happened when Boris announced his candidacy for PM, and recently when Leave's poll numbers improved.

Example B is : a “chilling effect” on the UK economy and Mark Carney says uncertainty is causing “a more marked slowdown”, but economists have rarely been so divided on how bad the second quarter is likely to be. Estimates range from a small acceleration of growth from the 0.4 per cent rate of the first quarter to a view that growth has already ground to a halt. What A and B tell us is that Brexit is already having an effect on confidence and investment, real indicators of the storms on the horizon.

Thirdly and most importantly this is not a total unknown. We know what will happen. We know that if we Brexit we will leave the European Union. It is not a total surprise like the 2008 crash was. The Queen said "why did no one see this coming?" We all see this coming, and because of that the predictions are much more accurate. Typically the macro conditions you have a rough idea of but you need data to trickle in to create your statistics. With Brexit you can calculuate these statistics prior to the fact because we know how much UK trade with the EU is worth - 43% of exports, linked to 3 million jobs and directly supporting 330k jobs in the UK, 48% of inward investment in the UK.

What is interesting is that Brexiteers know what they want yet have produced no post-Brexit plan about how to safeguard the UK economy.

With all this data already on hand and the expectation that the UK will lose some access to the EU market however temporary makes it much easier to make future predictions because the picture is already clear.

Finally if everyone is expecting a downturn there is more likely to be one. It will put people off buying houses and cars etc until the forecast is clearer.

It is not a stab in the dark. It is looking at what Brexiteer's want for this country and then simply applying that scenario to the status quo. Turns out it is poison, but increasingly the Brexit campaign has adopted the slogan 'ignorance is strength' so perhaps poison in upside-down world means sweet ambrosia.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b9685f0-1e87-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html

The last paragraph contains a flaw though, doesn't it ? 'applying that scenario to the status quo'. Whatever happens next we do not have the opportunity of voting for the status quo. If we did then that would get my vote. This whole Remain/Leave debate is about how we deal with future challenges. I was pro EU until about 5 years ago when the social implications of accelerating EU immigration forced me to think of the long term implication of membership. If we Remain then our higher standard of living will be a perpetual magnet for immigration from Eastern Europe and the English speaking world elsewhere. This will continue to drive up asset prices, depress wages for the middle and increase inequality. I agree with you that we need more economic study of the economic implications of Brexit. Equally, we need more economic study of the Remain case that is honest enough to take account of the huge changes that are coming our way with continued membership. Analysing with a baseline of the status quo is not enough.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I'm not totally surprised that in Brexiteer La-La Land yes means no, up means down, and recession means growth. I wish I had it in my to look at 9/10 expert opinions and confidently bet the opposite way, but you are totally blinded by your in-built biases - not the collective effort of every respectable organisation on the planet.

Personally if you cannot accept that 9/10 people with expertise on economics and international political economy think Brexit is poison you will never be convinced. But to entertain the interesting notion that the fewer people believe something, the more true it is - there are plenty of similarities between Brexit and homoeopathy come to think of it - it's worth explaining why this is wrong.

Example A is the fall in the pound when Brexiteers rise in the poll. This happened when Boris announced his candidacy for PM, and recently when Leave's poll numbers improved.

Example B is : a “chilling effect” on the UK economy and Mark Carney says uncertainty is causing “a more marked slowdown”, but economists have rarely been so divided on how bad the second quarter is likely to be. Estimates range from a small acceleration of growth from the 0.4 per cent rate of the first quarter to a view that growth has already ground to a halt. What A and B tell us is that Brexit is already having an effect on confidence and investment, real indicators of the storms on the horizon.

Thirdly and most importantly this is not a total unknown. We know what will happen. We know that if we Brexit we will leave the European Union. It is not a total surprise like the 2008 crash was. The Queen said "why did no one see this coming?" We all see this coming, and because of that the predictions are much more accurate. Typically the macro conditions you have a rough idea of but you need data to trickle in to create your statistics. With Brexit you can calculuate these statistics prior to the fact because we know how much UK trade with the EU is worth - 43% of exports, linked to 3 million jobs and directly supporting 330k jobs in the UK, 48% of inward investment in the UK.

What is interesting is that Brexiteers know what they want yet have produced no post-Brexit plan about how to safeguard the UK economy.

With all this data already on hand and the expectation that the UK will lose some access to the EU market however temporary makes it much easier to make future predictions because the picture is already clear.

Finally if everyone is expecting a downturn there is more likely to be one. It will put people off buying houses and cars etc until the forecast is clearer.

It is not a stab in the dark. It is looking at what Brexiteer's want for this country and then simply applying that scenario to the status quo. Turns out it is poison, but increasingly the Brexit campaign has adopted the slogan 'ignorance is strength' so perhaps poison in upside-down world means sweet ambrosia.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b9685f0-1e87-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html

In the real world It is best to remember just because an 'expert' or experts say something is likely to happen it doesn't necessarily make it true. Especially when their track record is extremely problematic. It's very telling you still can't provide evidence that these experts have any sought of credible record on making consistently accurate economic forecasts.

Your A/B examples are indicators that markets don't like uncertainty, they are not evidence for the overall long term economic positives/negatives of Brexit which the forecasts are guessing at.

You make one useful relevant point if 'everyone' (remainers) continually talk down our economic post Brexit prospects this increases uncertainty. It's almost like some of them have a vested interest in talking the UK down.. Also it's No 6 in the 'Ten Reasons Why Economists always get it wrong'

6.****Forecasts, of themselves,*affect the economy.* The forecast becomes part of the "given," and influences human behaviour--for good or ill.


Your third point was covered previously.

… Bear in mind that this is not the famous complaint from the Queen that nobody saw the financial crisis coming. The crisis was firmly established when these forecasts were made. The Financial Times had been writing exhaustively about the “credit crunch” since the previous summer. Northern Rock had been nationalised in the UK and Bear Stearns had collapsed in the US. It did not take a genius to see that trouble was on the way for the wider economy.

More astonishing still, when Loungani extends the deadline for forecasting a recession to September 2008, the consensus remained that not a single economy would fall into recession in 2009. Making up for lost time and satisfying the premise of an old joke, by September of 2009, the year in which the recessions actually occurred, the consensus predicted 54 out of 49 of them – that is, five more than there were. And, as an encore, there were 15 recessions in 2012. None were foreseen in the spring of 2011 and only two were predicted by September 2011.

Predictions from multinational organisations such as the IMF and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have remained very similar to the private sector consensus – similarly bad, that is.

https://next.ft.com/content/14e323ee-e602-11e3-aeef-00144feabdc0#axzz33EAHFQqf

This is evidence their predictive powers are shockingly suspect, consensus group-think isn't a plus ….which you continually ignore.

Interesting you think terms like rough idea and trickling in data and jobs linked to is a good basis for predictions. You mean numerous convenient assumptions that may be completely different next year and scenarios that you first say haven't been made clear by Brexiteers then refer to deals made by countries that are in no way comparable in economic/political size with the UK.

And finally there you go again suggesting forecasts are facts. Know one really knows what will happen be it poison or sweet ambrosia … anyone who says they do is a liar.

 

[Murray 17]

Just before I sleep.
I make no apologies for bouncing it.

The whole EU edifice is rotten, like Fifa. If decisive action is not taken by us it is still only a matter of time. Europe, if you care to be widely read, is on the brink. Eastern European pacts against compulsory migrant quotas. Hungary openly saying Muslims are not compatible. Poland pissed at what they see as their Sovereignty being interfered with. Scandinavian countries being overwhelmed. France in economic and employment collapse. Marine La Pen popularity soaring. Italy on economic brink. Greece F*cd. Migrant chaos thanks to Merkel. Schengen area a complete joke. unaccountable/electable elites. Europe will collapse without our Money. My god I could go on.
Vote OUT of this mess!

Very well put!

The EU was a good idea when it started. One of the huge downsides, which means IMO that it cannot continue in the long term in the size it currently is, is the move towards one state.

If we don't vote out on 23rd, and I hope we do, our citizens and those of other EU nations will put pressure on their governments to pull back from closer integration.

 

[5ways]

The last paragraph contains a flaw though, doesn't it ? 'applying that scenario to the status quo'. Whatever happens next we do not have the opportunity of voting for the status quo. If we did then that would get my vote. This whole Remain/Leave debate is about how we deal with future challenges. I was pro EU until about 5 years ago when the social implications of accelerating EU immigration forced me to think of the long term implication of membership. If we Remain then our higher standard of living will be a perpetual magnet for immigration from Eastern Europe and the English speaking world elsewhere. This will continue to drive up asset prices, depress wages for the middle and increase inequality. I agree with you that we need more economic study of the economic implications of Brexit. Equally, we need more economic study of the Remain case that is honest enough to take account of the huge changes that are coming our way with continued membership. Analysing with a baseline of the status quo is not enough.

Yes fair enough but I feel that remain gives us a stronger position in the long-term to face down the challenges you state. Although I do not agree that EU migration increases inequality. Our higher standard of living will come under corrosive attack from cheaper workers and markets abroad. This will happen in or out and there is no easy way to deal with it. You preserve or improve upon your standard of living by being more productive and creating higher value goods. The ability to do this is better within the EU not without because you retain access to the world's richest market, retain your trade agreements, and amplify your voice internationally.