EU Brexit impact - Treasury Analysis

Marktheshark

People buy things from us because we make things they want, not because we are in some club.
Personally I do not care if I have to eat Grass, I am voting Leave.
If a few millionaires lose a few quid then tough.

Graham_Devon

Wenlock wrote: »

On Radio 4 the BBC's Kamal Ahmed suggested the £4,300 figure was based on dividing the estimated (guessed) increased GDP figure in 2030 by the 26.5 million households in the UK.

However; largely as a result of high immigration, which will continue if we stay in the EU, the UK population is increasing by roughly 400K per year. By 2030 the population may be 10% higher than at present. I will be interested to see if the Treasury's £4,300 figure takes account of the many more "households" that will exist by 2030.

The treasury has estimated in this very document that net migration will increase by 3m by 2030.

However, in terms of your question, no....they do not include any extra households. They have divided the increased population figure for 2030 on the number of households in 2015, ignoring the 3m extra immigrants, therefore assuming the number of households remain the same. It's at this point many people will ask how a serious 200 page report can miss simple stuff such as this....but I personally feel the whole point was to calculate things this way.

If they included those immigrants in terms of households, at 3 people per household, the £4,300 figure would be lower. If they had looked at how the loss in GDP effect household income, it would be lower still. It wouldn't be long until you ended up at cost neutral.

The whole report is riddled with stuff like this. One figure compared to another figure that has no bearing on the previous figure and so on. Indeed, just dividing the possible loss across all households and suggesting every household will lose £4,300 is a nonsense in the first place.....as noted by Full Fact, the BBC's reality check, C4 news and Sky.

Miss_Samantha

Unsurprisingly, farmers do not want to be sacrificed and prefer to stay in the EU: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36078112

cells

Marktheshark wrote: »

People buy things from us because we make things they want, not because we are in some club.
Personally I do not care if I have to eat Grass, I am voting Leave.
If a few millionaires lose a few quid then tough.

when unemployment leap by about a million in the last recession there were not many millionares outside the job centre at 8.30 am

Shakethedisease

I've just had a read through the Guardian comments sections. Even firm remainers, of which there are many aren't buying the Treasury and Osborne's report today. Mainly on the basis that the Treasury haven't been too successful lately even predicting a few months ahead never mind 15 years.

The Sun and the Daily Mail have front page headlines regarding a 3 million 'surge' in immigration instead of the £4300 per household figure. And there's a general feeling that if a Brexit was so bad for the UK, why did the Cameron and the Tories campaign last year, and then call a referendum on it in the first place.

Backfire territory am afraid. This report is being trashed online from start to finish even by those intending to vote Remain. As I said at the start of this thread imo it was too early for this, if it was needed at all. About 3 weeks before the vote the Sun, the Mail and all the other media outlets who are backing Leave will start ramping and whipping up the immigration horror stories to hysteria levels.

Producing a report that assumes a Brexit will still mean another 3 million immigrants, when it's the very point for many that a Brexit won't.. Very strange. The Remain camp will have to up their game when it comes to offical reports. This one was awful.

fatbeetle

This is interesting, but it's from the Mail, so take it or leave it.

The assumption is that, between now and 2030, net migration will be almost three million.
From 2021 onward, it will be 185,000 every year – shattering the Tory promise to reduce it to the tens of thousands.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3546775/Osborne-s-3million-migrant-clanger-Treasury-s-doom-laden-report.html#ixzz46EHhBdxH

or the Indy

And the OBR assumes that net migration (total immigration minus emigration) falls from 329,000 per year in 2014 towards 185,000 per year from 2021 onwards – still significantly above the 100,000 upper limit sought by the Conservatives.

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well as there's zero possibility of leaving the EU being a benefit to the UK economy that's entirely understandable.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Where I was I was stating the fact, that whatever the figures had shown, there would have been no Treasury report showing that Brexit would be economically beneficial. If by any chance the figures had shown this to be inescapably true, there would have been no report.

Of course the Remain campaign are desparately pushing the economic argument because guesswork or not it's their strongest weapon. They're hoping to deflect attention from issues like immigration & an ever-decreasing ability to decide our own laws.

Personally I'd happily sacrifice a little wealth for greater control but a lot of people are happy to be lotus-eaters.

mwpt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I've just had a read through the Guardian comments sections. Even firm remainers, of which there are many aren't buying the Treasury and Osborne's report today. Mainly on the basis that the Treasury haven't been too successful lately even predicting a few months ahead never mind 15 years.

The Sun and the Daily Mail have front page headlines regarding a 3 million 'surge' in immigration instead of the £4300 per household figure. And there's a general feeling that if a Brexit was so bad for the UK, why did the Cameron and the Tories campaign last year, and then call a referendum on it in the first place.

Backfire territory am afraid. This report is being trashed online from start to finish even by those intending to vote Remain. As I said at the start of this thread imo it was too early for this, if it was needed at all. About 3 weeks before the vote the Sun, the Mail and all the other media outlets who are backing Leave will start ramping and whipping up the immigration horror stories to hysteria levels.

I guess only the final result will tell us. You are correct, this sort of referendum is fought with emotions rather than fact and logic. According to a poster on this thread, his life is apparently so terrible by being in the union that he would actually favour a fall in living standards where everyone ends up eating grass before he will vote in. Another poster in another thread is still stuck in 1935 and believes the EU is a not-so-secret German plot to invade by stealth when force didn't work. Ironically, he wants the institution that has resulted in peace in Europe for decades to be broken up, probably so we can go back to fighting his overt wars of hatred where people actually die by the millions, this would be cleaner.

mwpt

Fella wrote: »

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Where I was I was stating the fact, that whatever the figures had shown, there would have been no Treasury report showing that Brexit would be economically beneficial. If by any chance the figures had shown this to be inescapably true, there would have been no report.

Of course the Remain campaign are desparately pushing the economic argument because guesswork or not it's their strongest weapon. They're hoping to deflect attention from issues like immigration & an ever-decreasing ability to decide our own laws.

Personally I'd happily sacrifice a little wealth for greater control but a lot of people are happy to be lotus-eaters.

Why, though? Why is this theoretical concept of being more in control of your laws (entirely theoretical, it isn't actually a reality), so important at only a national level, that you would make everyone worse off so your principles can be sated?

I mean, what is the point of it all, the point of laws and government, if not to make us all better off? There is quite literally, no other point! You're voting against the very thing which you think you are voting for.

michaels

mwpt wrote: »

Why, though? Why is this theoretical concept of being more in control of your laws (entirely theoretical, it isn't actually a reality), so important at only a national level, that you would make everyone worse off so your principles can be sated?

I mean, what is the point of it all, the point of laws and government, if not to make us all better off? There is quite literally, no other point! You're voting against the very thing which you think you are voting for.

That is very sad if the only quality of life issue that matters to you is how well off you are