EU Brexit impact - Treasury Analysis

mwpt

michaels wrote: »

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

Quality of life is the only thing I can think of. I want to be (and want other people to be) happier and healthier.

Am I being dim here?

EDIT: Ok, I took a step back and thought harder about your post. I see you question that wealth is the only thing that leads to happiness. Of course this is not what I meant. Happiness for me is typically found in my relationships with other people. But health and prosperity are important too. What I meant by my comment is that I can't see a reason for choosing one form of governance which resulted in a lower quality of life over another form of governance which resulted in a higher quality of life, because of some dislike for the latter form. If people are generally better off, healthier and still free to find happiness if their relationships, why would you choose the form of governance that makes you worse off? How else do you objectively judge between forms of governance, apart from that which makes everyone better off and hopefully happier?

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

the report is not claiming a 6% fallin GDP.
it is claiming that GDP will be 6% lower than it otherwise would be in 15 years time

The fact you think that is a pertinent difference emphasises how poorly you understand the concept. A longer decline is actually worse than a sudden fall because in addition to having a point where your GDP is 6% lower you have a long period where it is between 0-6% lower as well.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

The fact you think that is a pertinent difference emphasises how poorly you understand the concept. A longer decline is actually worse than a sudden fall because in addition to having a point where your GDP is 6% lower you have a long period where it is between 0-6% lower as well.

there is a significant difference between an absolute fall in GDP and a lower rate of growth

N1AK

fatbeetle wrote: »

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

or the Indy

Although it's refreshing to see it admitted that immigration is the major drive behind the brexit campaign it's notable that no one on the leave side is giving a credible explanation of what immigration will be if we leave.

Norway is often held up as an example by the leave campaign of a successful country we could imitate outside the EU, but they have the same free movement with the EU that we do and actually have higher per capita immigration.

Is anyone on the leave side confident that leaving means that we will end free movement of people with the EU? I'm not, and even if we did it makes the leave campaigns surreal scenario where we leave and get free-choice to pick and choose whatever benefits we like without the bits we don't want even more nonsensical.

Can you not remember the Scottish independence campaign where the SNP tried the same and the very people who dismissed it are now gulping it down blindly. The SNP wanted Scots to believe they could leave the UK while keeping sterling, unrestricted trade and movement with the UK, EU membership automatically etc etc and their claims as blatantly wrong as they were are nothing compared to some of the leave campaigns lies.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is a significant difference between an absolute fall in GDP and a lower rate of growth

This should be worth a laugh: Why don't you explain to use how the two would differ in practice between now and 2040 assuming that the absolute fall was to happen in 2030? Apparently you can tell the difference so it shouldn't be hard.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

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.

is this a FACT or an uneducated opinion?

The FACT that Europe had about 500,000 US troops stationed in Germany had absolutely nothing to do with maintaining peace or the existence of NATO or people moving on from perpetual war or the soviet threat.

sadly facts are in the eyes of the beholder

michaels

N1AK wrote: »

The fact you think that is a pertinent difference emphasises how poorly you understand the concept. A longer decline is actually worse than a sudden fall because in addition to having a point where your GDP is 6% lower you have a long period where it is between 0-6% lower as well.

The economy this year will grow more 0.5% slower this year than had been anticipated just 6 months ago - will that feel like the end of the world? Repeat (to a considerably lesser degree) for the next 15 years and sure there will be a noticeable difference between the two positions at the end but to the people living through either path it will feel pretty much the same.

And that is before you look at per capita GDP rather than total GDP which the remain camp are ignoring which I don't think anyone (even Hamish) can argue is an irrelevance.

And of course if being in Europe means our growth rate going forward trends towards the European average than the RoW average then that 0.4% pa will quickly actually operate in the opposite direction....

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

This should be worth a laugh: Why don't you explain to use how the two would differ in practice between now and 2040 assuming that the absolute fall was to happen in 2030? Apparently you can tell the difference so it shouldn't be hard.

no idea what you are saying
there is a clear difference between an absolute fall in GDP from now and a smaller than otherwise increase.

Fella

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.

It's not a theoretical concept, it's a fact.

Re the second point, I don't believe everyone would be worse off. What I said was that I'd be happy to be less well off financially if that happened (not that I believed it would happen).

The point of laws & govt isn't to make us better off but I think you already corrected yourself there. Most people would put safety, for example, above wealth.

The gist of your arguement though, seems to rest in the extremely naive belief that the Eurozone exists for the benefit of all, when in fact it exists very definitely for the benefit of a few countries. As long as we are a part of it, we are subject to the majority vote of a bunch of countries who's interests are solely their own & absolutely not ours. IMO you have to be out of your mind to actually choose to have that imposed upon you but there you go....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.

Backfire territory am afraid. .

Ummmm..... Nope.

New Crosby poll.