Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Can't seem to find Guardian reading Remainers posting this, worth a look, hardly boom but clearly not bust either.
This is after each sector has been spun by the Guardian economic corresponents, from 1 day ago, so a message to you Remainers that continually cite economic disaster, you are either guessing or more likely just hoping.
How has the Brexit vote affected the economy? December verdict, The Guardian Business, from 1 ady ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...it-vote-affected-the-economy-december-verdict
'Pound rised amid sufficient Brexit progess'.
The pound remains more than 10% down against the dollar since the EU referendum in June 2016.
Sterling is where sterling is, Remainers will use it as an inicator of the economies weakness and inevitable inflationary outcomes Brexiteers will cite it being previously too high and better for Exports whilst we are told that any inflationary pressures should ease next year as the initial shock of devaluation has rinsed through, inflation due to drop next year.
FTSE 100 benefits from Trump bump'
Markets: Well Remainers dropped this as their favourite indicator soon after the referendum as FTSE 100 hit records highs, they played with the idea of using the FTSE 250 as their new found indicator, guess what they soon dropped this too.
'Increase inflation adds to cost of living squeeze'.
Inflation rose to 3.1% highest since March 2012, not sure what was happening in 2012 but it seems that inflation has peaked and will reduce next year.
'Narrowing trade deficit is likely to buoy Brexiters'.
trade in goods deficit came in at £10.8bn in the three months to October, which was better than the forecast of £11.5bn made by economists. The figures show the export of goods to non-EU countries increased as imports decreased, which will cheer supporters of Brexit who want to see the UK expand trade outside the single market.
'Key industries give mixed signals for economic growth'
manufacturing also beat forecasts to record its strongest PMI in four years.
There was more positive news from the smaller construction and manufacturing sectors of the economy, which together account for about a fifth of GDP
'Public sector finances improve'
the deficit has fallen by £3.1bn compared with the same period last year to £48.1bn, also the lowest figure at this stage of the financial year since 2007.
'Britain’s jobs boom shows signs of slowing'.
The UK’s unemployment rate remained steady at 4.3%, despite expectations for a further drop to 4.2% among forecasters. There was some good news however, as average weekly earnings excluding bonuses were 2.3% higher in the three month period to October – higher than expectations among City economists for wages to rise by 2.2%.
'Retail sales receive Black Friday boost'.
Black Friday promotions helped increase high street and online sales in November, with retailers recording a monthly gain of 1.1% from the amount of goods sold in October. City economists had forecast an increase of 0.4%
'Clouds gather over the housing market'.
The net balance of experts forecasting prices to rise across the country fell to zero from +1% in October – meeting the expectations of City economists.
Even The Guardian is struggling to find too much weakeness due to Brexit shock, dont argue with me argue with the Guardian correspondents.
Last edited:
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
What is the lie beorhthelm?
Sterling will bubble around, but it’s been in the range of 10% to 20% lower, that means people are poorer.
At 3.9% RPI has not been this high since 2011 and was 1.6% at the vote. Real wages are being impacted.
The stuff around being the lowest growth amounts major economies is also true. Etc
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I never said that. I said that we should now be sceptical of any economic predictions but if you really have to trust someone to get it right as you say you do then it would make sense to listen to those experts who have been most accurate so far. I certainly wouldn't place more trust in the word of someone who wrongly forecast an immediate apocalypse. I'd be more inclined to question why they are still in their extremely well-paid jobs.
The only extreme in what I'm talking about is how wrong Mark Carney and the gang were. The IMF/CBI view was the mainstream. Minford was in the minority but his forecasts were very tame in comparison.
Hang on. You're saying that we shouldn't dismiss any forecasts they make for 2 or more years down the line because circumstances that they didn't foresee have changed. I'd agree with you normally but they've already completely trashed any trust we had in them because they previously got it so very wrong with their expert opinion of what would happen in the next 60 days.
Also, nothing is ever static with macroeconomics, anyone making long-term forecasts needs to be able to understand that, be able to know most of the parameters that might change things and give opinions based on more than one scenario. If they can't do that then they really shouldn't be in that job. But we've already established that.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
You see, This is exactly what I'm getting at. All the experts that you chose to believe in got it wrong but you still absolutely have faith in them despite everything.
Economic models rely on key assumptions, upon which they have no control. Many of the "completely wrong" models made the assumption that the timescales for leaving would be day one, how else do you model such an impact? The fact that things are progressing at a snails pace does not necessarily devalue the models, it just means that the impact is pushed back further. That we are still getting dire predictions about the impact of leaving reflects this.
Minford's total free trade model, isn't necessarily wrong, although it is clearly flawed in that it fails to take into account the relationship between proximity and trade. Whilst there are many examples of goods that flow freely throughout the world, many goods either due to perish ability, relative transport costs, or language/cultural barriers to trade are disproportionately traded across short distances.
Finally you have to decide if this is politically acceptable. The impact on our manufacturing and agricultural bases would be significant, healthcare and education would be more closely aligned with the US model. Is there an upside to this? I just don't get it.
Thirty years ago, you would see international contracts that would be signed under the jurisdiction of English Law, which was still one of the most advanced and widely understood legal frameworks. The world has moved on and English law will be largely irrelevant to the settlement of international trade disputes, sovereignty or no sovereignty.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
As a recession will inevitably arrive at some point in the future in or out of the EU, what's your cut off point for blaming Brexit .... 3, 5,10, 15, 20 years?
Can anyone point to a Brexit economic forecast that said we would have the strongest G7 growth in 2016.. and only have 0.1% less growth in 2017.. and the lowest unemployment in 42 years. I seem to remember some shock and severe shock scenarios on the immediate effects of a vote to leave forecasting recession GDP 3.6 to 6% lower with half a million plus unemployed.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Just to make clear, are you saying that Goldman Sachs, IMF, The Bank Of England were probably working on the assumption that we had a referendum on the Thursday and then left the EU on the Friday?
If not and you mean that simply Article 50 was triggered then we would still have been in the Single Market with all the benefits and obligations that go with it right up until we left which surely everyone knew would be at least a year away and almost certainly more. And the reality is pretty much this although Article 50 wasn't triggered in June 2016 but March 2017. If the trigger of Article 50 was the catalyst for the predicted economic apocalypse then why did it not happen in March?
Sorry, but I don't buy this mea non culpa whichever way you mean.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
This seems to missed by too many in the world of global trade. Even now most trade agreements start with neighbouring countries. We have decided to snub our closest markets. The world keeps moving, but we are and will be poorer. Unfortunately that will impact the poor more than the wealthy
That's a flawed analysis of a flawed analysis.
I remember even when I started my business life presenting business plans to banks and other lenders, even my one man band had to offer some sets of 'sensitivity analysis', to try and allay any fears that my figures were just fantasy and how I might act if certain scenarios presented themselves.
You are saying international entities were unable to factor in a myriad of factors such as changing timescales, negotiation outcomes and other relevent scenarios and present them transparently.
It was politically charged and mainly Remainers got suckered and you backed it to the hilt, yet it hasnt happened and I suspect it never will, so you cling on to any morsel of bad economic news and hail it as some vindication of your own position.
Last edited:
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Agreed. I don't think even the most die-hard Remainer on here would deny that the Bank of England giving an official opinion on a political matter for the first time in its history was a deliberate act to scare people into voting Remain. Carney's claim that he was acting in the best interests of the British public who needed to understand the risks doesn't ring true because in this year's general election he made no comment on John McDonnell's plan of wholescale nationalisation if he became chancellor even though it carries huge implications for BoE policy.
Carney further tarnished his reputation with a knee-jerk and unnecessary decision to drop interest rates the day after the vote.
It's missed because its nonesensicle, modern trade isnt necessarily driven by proximity its driven by supply and demand, a large growing economy is the point of focus for business rather than a poor neighbour.
Germany's top 4 trading partners are China, Netherlands, France and the US, of course the EU is relevent and important and thats why we have no plans to snub it.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
I was talking trade agreements which is a different point.
Far from being nonsensical, unless you are in the land of the one eyed, trade kind of supports it too though. Their top ten exporting countries are
USA
France
U.K.
Netherlands
China
Italy
Austria
Poland
Switzerland
Belgium
It is little surprise that the two largest economies by some margin are in their with those much smaller but local European counties.
Last edited:
I agree that geographic, cultural and sharing of a common language can be a factor, however modern day trade is far more global than it has ever been, but Brexit trading aspirations isn't about shunning trade with the EU whilst trading exclusively with the rest of the world, its is both.
Last edited:
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
Good point. I think many believe that for some reason both the UK and EU are trying to cut themselves off from future trading. It’s in everyone’s interests to get a deal that works for both sides and at least we will also be able to trade with other nations outside the EU
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
The U.K. already exports more to non EU countries than EU countries, we have or had that Brexit trading aspiration.
All the signals are that we are making ourselves less competitive within the EU market, which account for c47% of exports, so no small deal. Unless we stay in the customs union and the single market but that defeats the purpose for most Brexiteers.
Let’s see what the Brexiteers leading the negotiations can do, I might well be pleasantly surprised, eg if Davis skilfully and artfully (not things many currently associate with him) negotiates a trade deal as good or even better as the one we already had in the EU, and at the same or less cost.
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
Perfectly reasonable for you to explain your reasons for voting Leave. I respect them.
But don't assume that everyone voted Leave for the same reasons. You repeat the old claim that most Brexit voters didn't really believe the £350m claim, so please forgive me if I repeat the oft-explained claim that it was a big lie without which Leave wouldn't have won. The difference between the two is that one is made by half a dozen posters on NSC and the other is made by the campaign director of Vote Leave.
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
I’m with Larus on this. I know the £350m claim has been well used but when you think about it could that many people have seriously believed it was going to the NHS? That could well be the case but I really can’t believe there are that many stupid people around surely. I don’t know why the campaign director for leave would say that but he must have had an agenda as you can’t tell me he himself believed it
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Exactly. There were many people who were ill informed enough to believe the lie. And it wouldn’t have been used if it wasn’t going to be effective. They knew they were misleading but it didn’t matter to them.
And we still don’t have a U.K. exit position despite being what 18 months down the line. Supports your view that there were many varying reasons
Jackthelad
Well-known member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 813
The £350 million NHS lie was never a reason Brexit won, it was immigration issue that's what swung the vote, before Leave focused on that key issue they were doing terrible in the debate.