This looks fun: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/busin...ss-_-403380141-_-Imageandlink&linkId=22500525
"Brexit to cause ‘£100bn shock to UK economy’"
"Brexit to cause ‘£100bn shock to UK economy’"
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The ultimate REFERENDUM thread
- Thread starter sir albion
- Start date
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Brought to us by the same geniuses who warned us the British economy would implode if we didn't join the Euro!Idiots
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Splitting hairs again HT,over 1 year.It was 6 years to apply for citizenship even when I lived in West Germany nearly 40 years ago,and the same rules still apply in Merkeland.
Report was written by PwC.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
It's the numbers on non EU migrants that could possibly get EU citizenship later on, that will become a problem. It's brings with it so many challenges both economically and culturally, I dread to think what Europe is going to be like in another 20 odd years. If we get out of the EU then whoever runs this country is then accountable for migration from the EU, at the moment we have no say. The EU could also add more acountries and with that will bring even more open door migration.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
It's always going to be a shock thou isn't it. If we don't leave now we never will. People have had enough, they have had enough of the EU, had enough of migration and had enough of governments not listening to the people of this country. Don't know how old you are 5 ways, but I'm 41 years old and I know this country is so much better than this.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,329
yep, commissioned by the CBI who are pro-EU and stated categorically, quite strongly with similar reports as "evidence", that we must join the Euro. whats your point? it cant be that the report is independent and objective, shirley?
I'm afraid that is my point - and they seem to come to the same conclusion as
"Other organisations such as US investment banks JP Morgan and Citi along with BlackRock, the world’s largest fund manager, have warned that a Brexit vote would damage Britain’s economy, the CBI’s analysis is the most detailed yet into the potential impact on the economy.
Last week a new report from the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) at the London School of Economics also warned that UK trade and living standards would suffer. Average incomes would fall by £850 a household in the most optimistic post-Brexit scenario for UK trade, in which Britain adopts Norway’s model and remains part of the EU’s single market. But the CEP estimated that the impact from reduced trade and lower productivity could be as high as £6,400 per household, similar to the decline seen at the height of the financial crisis in 2008-09."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/21/brexit-could-cost-100bn-and-nearly-1m-jobs-cbi-warns
All these organisations can't have been bought and paid for by the CBI can they
The shock is growth and jobs. I'm 25 and the last thing I need is another recession - having graduated in the previous one. The EU is a good pinata for any gripe - and I'm not saying there are not problems. But migrants pay more in than they take out, we have low unemployment and a fairly stable economy. When you were born our economy was much bigger than China's, when I was born it was still sizeably bigger. The world is changing and we have to fight for every job and every percent of growth. The relative prosperity of your generation is not going to get passed on to mine - we have to compete with the world and being in the EU gives us a crucial edge in maintaining our standards of living.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,329
All these organisations can't have been bought and paid for by the CBI can they
they are in the main pro-EU and presenting worst case scenarios. frankly i find it some comfort that when the finance world crunches the numbers, the worse case they can arrive at, with all the negative assumptions included such as no free trade at all, is a reduction of 5% of GDP. consequently they suppose even with a full free trade agreement, we'd lose 3%, which is something one would have to read the full report to find how they justify (on the surface it implies staying in would lead to a similar loss of GDP, or that somehow non-trade related benefits of membership are worth upto 3% of GDP).
and what is constantly missing from those wishing to stay in are the risks and impact of doing that. the EU will change in the next 5 years, what will be the impact of a euro collapse, a continuation or ratcheting up of refugee crisis, impact of fast tracking Turkey into the EU (very much on the cards)?
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
You said it yourself, you have to fight for every job, so why do encourage even more people to come to the country and create more competition for yourself.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
Could & Possibly isn't enough of a reason.
Because in exchange for that we get market access and stronger growth - which in turn creates more jobs. It also forces companies to become leaner and more innovative. John Major was right the other day when he said that we went from the sick man of Europe to a star performer. Prior to joining the EU we had lower wages than France or Italy. The exposure to competition helped whip us into shape.
They look at the best case and worst case scenario and find a negative impact even at the most positive end of potential outcomes. The three potential downsides you give are just that - potentialities. There is a guaranteed negative economic cost to Brexit. Also Turkey is no where near joining the EU and I strongly suspect it will never happen. There is no risk free option but our risk is managed better by remaining IN. This is why the closer we get to Brexit the more unstable the pound becomes - the increase of unnecessary risk.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,329
firstly, there are no "guarantees" in economics either way, its perfectly possible, albeit low probability, that we could see a positive outcome from Brexit. its most probably we'd see a marginal negative short term effect, that would be absorbed or rather hidden in the general macroeconomic outlook. i.e. something like 0.1% drop from forecasts will be blamed on exit, when its normal for a greater error from forecast to emerge anyway. very little can be managed by staying in the EU as they will drive and dictate. post election if we vote to remain, there will be an almighty backdraft from the EU as they catch up with issues suppressed to not upset the vote, not least a revision on those promises that will be watered down and/or challenged in European courts.
secondly, i know the pro-EU will want to hide this, but right now the EU is begging Turkey to help with the refugee crisis and as they are in a position of power on this matter, and the EU has complete;y lost internal coherence on the issue, they can hold out for an ever increasing number of concessions. visas for Turks is the first of many changes that will accelerate their inclusion into "European" Union.
I would like to see this positive economic case because I haven't yet. The weight of evidence is against this massively. "Marginal negative short term effects" "absorbed or hidden in the general economic outlook" ?! Where are you getting this?
Try "the shock of a British exit could cut economic output between 3 and 5.4 per cent in 2020, depending on what sort of deal Britain managed to negotiate with its trading partners."
and "The UK economy could lose more than half a million jobs by 2020 in the event of a vote to leave the EU and would be unlikely to recover from the impact fully even after 15 years, the head of the CBI is set to warn."
and, being positive, rather than a 0.1% drop in forecasts (not sure what this means) "In the CBI’s more optimistic scenario, per capita GDP would be 0.8 per cent lower in 2030 than if the UK stayed within the union."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b5658da-eeaf-11e5-9f20-c3a047354386.html
this isn't just Project Fear - regardless of the vote "The report warns against overstating this finding, noting that the hit to GDP by 2030 represents a loss of only one or two years of trend growth. “The UK would remain a relatively large, affluent and growing economy in both our exit scenarios, just not quite as large or affluent as in the counterfactual.”
The laws have changed significantly over the past 40 years.....which is hardly surprising.
It's now 8 and you have to demonstrate a hell of a lot of "integration". This is quite different to a simple 5 years of residency which Pastafarian suggested. Even then it's not an automatic acceptance. No splitting of hairs.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,329
quite. its near meaningless, GDP can and will diverge from forecasts several tenths of % every year. last week the Chancellor revised 2016 growth to 2% down from 2.4% forecast last autumn. to suggest there is a -0.8% outcome predicted for 15 years time, when that's within the margin of error over a couple of years, is absurd. or fear-mongering. what this highlights is the headline worse case scenario of 5% is cumulative, i.e. 1% a year as much as it looks. the effect of -0.8% by 2030 would be means that rather than growing 30% by then, we'd have grown 29.2%, indistinguishable from changes caused by other detrimental economic policy.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Interesting that the staying in campaign has toned down the OTT doomsday predictions to “The UK would remain a relatively large, affluent and growing economy in both our exit scenarios, just not quite as large or affluent as in the counterfactual.”
The CBI and PWC both previously supported us joining the Euro suggesting negative outcomes if we didn't. So no surprise they predict a negative outcome now.
Analysis of that report from an equally neutral source..
The report states ‘our model estimates suggest that [t]otal real UK GDP could be around 36-39% higher in 2030 than in 2015 in the two exit scenarios’ (p.9)
The paper also admits that growth will continue in the short term and that, in the long term economic growth will be stronger outside the EU compared to remaining inside (p.28).
The paper also admits that employment will grow if we Vote Leave - though they attempt to hide this fact. In one table the CBI sets out projected employment growth in the ‘counterfactual’ scenario (i.e. Britain remains in the EU) and then, in another table, sets out what the difference is between the counterfactual and the two leave scenarios. Putting these two tables together reveals that according to the report, employment will rise if we Vote Leave.
This means that the CBI’s report shows that, even on the ‘worst case’ scenario, the UK will gain over 3 million jobs if we Vote Leave.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org...conomy_employment_will_grow_outside_of_the_eu
All sounds pretty positive to me.
It was never OTT doomsday - it was always there will be a negative economic impact both in terms of a short-term shock and long-term damage.
They've really cherry picked their sentences from the report and managed to avoid reading the executive summary. No one is deny the economy will grow between now and 2030.
what it says in full:
Figure 5.2 shows the level of real UK GDP under the three scenarios. Compared to 2015 levels, real UK GDP
would be 39% larger in the FTA scenario and 36% larger in the WTO scenario in 2030. Nonetheless, the level of
UK GDP would still be lower in 2030 under both the WTO and FTA scenarios than under the counterfactual
scenario (GDP grows by 41% over the same period) where the UK remains part of the EU. However, one should
not overstate this difference, which amounts to less than one year of trend growth in the FTA scenario and less
than two years of trend growth in the WTO scenario.
The economy will grow and create jobs outside the EU as is the nature of capitalism. But it will create less growth and less jobs, with higher unemployment.
As they say in the exec sum:
We estimate that total UK GDP in 2020 could be between around 3% and 5.5% lower under
the FTA and WTO scenarios respectively than if the UK remains in the EU. In both cases, the
largest short-term impact on the economy is felt through the additional uncertainty that would result
from a UK vote to leave. The negative impact represents a reduction of around £55-100 billion in UK
GDP, at 2015 values.
By 2030 this post-exit uncertainty should be resolved, but we estimate that the net longer term impact of
other changes related to EU exit could result in total UK GDP in 2030 being between 1.2% and
3.5% lower in our two exit scenarios than if the UK remains in the EU (around £25-65
billion, at 2015 values). This reflects the potential negative economic impacts of increased barriers to
trade and labour mobility after EU exit, offset in part by potential benefits from lower regulatory burdens
and fiscal savings from no longer paying net budgetary contributions to the EU.
http://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/leaving-the-eu-implications-for-the-uk-economy.pdf