If we vote for Brexit what happens

Rinoa

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Subsequent research however has been undertaken and has confirmed it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study

Those are the headline figures for the media. In reality they've taken 'best case' scenarios and presented these as fact. Other projections are carefully hidden away in their appendix.

Their report only takes into consideration recent arrivals since 2011 and airbrushes out immigrants from earlier years. Either way the report still states that immigrants from 1995 to 2011 made a negative fiscal contribution of at least £115Bn and possibly as high as £160Bn.

Migrationwatch takes issue with the report in several other areas too:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/347

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Again I request that you stop trolling me!! You distort all my posts with your own spin of hate and accusation even when the subject being discussed is different. I find this bullying and highly offensive. By the way look at my posting number compared to yours....hypocrite!

I only quote what you say in your posts
that isn't trolling its simply pointing out that I disagree with your love of IRA supporting labor leaders and your hatred of British institutions and your ignorance of the true state of feeling about the EU amongst ORDINARY people (not just labour activisitic in a cocoon) and of course your ignorance about what 'little englander' means .

I'm challenged you loads of times to point out any specific point that you consider incorrect or a troll.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

What % of the UK land is built on? A clue: (it is a lot less than 10%)

if you include scotland and wales then the amount of developed land is much less than 10%

in england about 11% of the land is developed
Hamish always points out that this includes playing fields and public developed spaces which he clearly feels is unfair as these can easily be built on
he also points out that this figure includes your garden which again he feels can be built on.

Rinoa

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

- why these 3m jobs linked to EU exports would suffer if as the Treasury says in their "severe-shock" scenario the value of Sterling would fall by 15%, which would more than eliminate the Common Customs Tariff the EU would impose if there were no free trade agreement between the UK and the EU.

Spot on.. If Sterling fell 15% our exports would be the cheapest in the western world and our exports to the EU would actually soar even after EU tariffs had been imposed.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Clapton, I have to agree with Moby, your responses seem to distort the posts you comment upon.

Where in my post did I blame immigrants?

I have answered your questions in my post below amd you have not answered the question I asked you:

.

OK so you say the government OUGHT to have done something different in the past

so your solution is to DO NOTHING
why not just say so?

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
EU migration is critical to our economic success and ability fund the care of the massively increasing elderly population.
...

Made up rubbish from a middle class perspective.

If you want cheap labour be honest enough to go and get it from the cheapest places in the world.

I prefer technology and automation as route to prosperity, something you constantly ignore.

You have a landlord view. I get it. It's that simple.

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

If Nestle sponsor a scientific study extolling the benefits of eating chocolate then people roll their eyes. And yet if the IFS, almost entirely funded by the UK Govt and the EU say that they can accurately forecast the impact of Brexit then their word is gospel.

9 out of 10 experts are wrong? Yes it begins to sound a little deluded.:)

The study that you object to was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council which is established by Royal Charter to fund independent and impartial research. Sure the ESRC is largely funded by BIS but is an arms length body and also gets funds from many sources because of its reputation for impartial research. These include industry, independent trusts, donations and the EU.

Just because you do not like the view expressed by the IFS you imply it is tainted. It is funded by donations and undertakes studies from organisations that commission them. It has a reputation to consider so why would a non-profit making body allow that to be tarnished by exhibiting bias?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

OK so you say the government OUGHT to have done something different in the past

so your solution is to DO NOTHING
why not just say so?

Again you wilfully misinterpret what I said (again) and fail to explain your reference to blame.

Bit pointless continuing really.

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

9 out of 10 experts are wrong? Yes it begins to sound a little deluded.:)

The study that you object to was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council which is established by Royal Charter to fund independent and impartial research. Sure the ESRC is largely funded by BIS but is an arms length body and also gets funds from many sources because of its reputation for impartial research. These include industry, independent trusts, donations and the EU.

Just because you do not like the view expressed by the IFS you imply it is tainted. It is funded by donations and undertakes studies from organisations that commission them. It has a reputation to consider so why would a non-profit making body allow that to be tarnished by exhibiting bias?

To be honest I don't think they will have exhibited deliberate bias but then niether probably do the research departments funded by the food industry. however it is very hard not to have prejudice steered by ones peer group.

However the remain campaign claim every day that no mainstream economists show brexit to be too our advantage and yet Patrick Minford and his group do.

All the research also headlines the predicted gdp impact rather than gdp per head even though the later must be of more relevance and that is even before we get into the distributional consequences. Most studies (like the one quoted above) agree that the higher up the income distribution you are the more you benefit from the eu so isn't it likely the converse would be true of any losses from brexit?

TrickyTree83

kabayiri wrote: »

Made up rubbish

So far his recession statistics appear to be just that, yet if you scroll through and see how many people thank him for the posts it's crazy that people can be influenced by such wildly unsubstantiated claims.

Even after the Treasury came out with that "severe-shock" figure Remain have been hesitant to defend it and try to dodge it when it's brought up. Economists have said it's a massive over-reaction and a forecast up to 2030 when they've clearly and demonstrably been unable to predict the next 4 quarters surely cannot be trusted 100%?

And yet on here we have people claiming it will be 100%+ of the Treasury "severe-shock" forecast in job losses, a repossessions figure which is 3 times higher than a 3 year period after the worst recession in living memory. That's without mentioning the Bank of England governor Mark Carney saying the recession could last up to a year. That's one hell of a shock within a year.

Personally I've never said there wouldn't be a shock to the economy, I've never said there would be no chance of recession either. But in this case either the Treasury and the Bank of England are wrong, or Hamish is? So how credible can you be when you throw wild figures like this around?

Edit: And I've still not been given any source of information to back up his claims. It's gone ominously quiet on that.