EU Brexit impact - Treasury Analysis

BobQ

Alan_Brown wrote: »

This is just a personal attack, and I don't see what the point of it is? I have a different opinion on the EU than you, that doesn't make me a bad person, there is no need to personalise the debate. We're not children.

You seem a sensitive soul to regard this as a personal attack. The nature of this medium is that we have no body language or voice inflections to understand others. We can only comment on people's posts based on what they say.

The term "little Englander" is not in my view an insult. It is a shorthand way of describing someone. The Urban dictionary defines it as "a person who perceives most foreign influences on Britain's culture and institutions as damaging or insidious". Your posts give this impression.

It is not an insult to have such an attitude but it does reflect a narrow view of the world. It does not make you a "bad person", but who suggested that it did?

mwpt

BobQ wrote: »

You seem a sensitive soul to regard this as a personal attack.

I've been accused of being too sensitive before. Is this a bad thing, being a sensitive soul?

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

The term "little Englander".......

It is not an insult to have such an attitude but it does reflect a narrow view of the world.

I find those of us that wish to trade and fully engage with the entire globe are anything but little Englanders. If anything we're quite courageous and open minded.


Only 9% of our entire economic output goes to the EU - I would say an obsession with this is small minded, especially since we will of course continue to sell the EU air seat ejectors and rock concerts and they will sell us 1 million German cars pa, and thus of course want a grown-up trading relationship.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

So you do not believe the Treasury's document is analysis? Or any of the other analysis it quotes and claims consistency with?

The report makes it clear that Exit would change things and make things worse compared to the status quo.

the analysis says that if we leave then things will get better
the analysis says that if we stay then things will get better

the analysis says that stay gets more better than leave.

the difference between two large numbers is quite small with very large error margins.

before believing analysis it is not unreasonable to consider the quality of their previous analysis.
given the general track record with supporting the UK joining or not the euro
and of Greece joining the EU and the euro
and prediction about the general financial meltdown
and the quarterly / half year / year forecasts
and the ongoing failure to move the EU out of its current dismal economic performance even after 8/9 from the meltdown

I am not encouraged to believe they can get forecasts 15 years hence with any reliability.

The fact that many independent bodies agree is simply the usual 'group think' which has failed so many times.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

You seem a sensitive soul to regard this as a personal attack. The nature of this medium is that we have no body language or voice inflections to understand others. We can only comment on people's posts based on what they say.

The term "little Englander" is not in my view an insult. It is a shorthand way of describing someone. The Urban dictionary defines it as "a person who perceives most foreign influences on Britain's culture and institutions as damaging or insidious". Your posts give this impression.

It is not an insult to have such an attitude but it does reflect a narrow view of the world. It does not make you a "bad person", but who suggested that it did?

many racist expressions were shorthand ways of expressing an idea: most people have moved on and stopped using these terms

: find a different expression to describe people who believe in nation state democracy, in engaging with the whole world rather than limiting one's horizons to a group of white christian states and don't want unrestricted immigration from said group of states and believe that the EU management is incompetent and incapable of solving their problems.

Conrad

CLAPTON wrote: »

The fact that many independent bodies agree is simply the usual 'group think' which has failed so many times.

Yes, 99% of economists did not agree with credit crunch predictions being made by the 1% around 2006/7 (first I saw was in 2005). The BOE urged us to join the Euro as did the IMF.


As you say, group-think is omnipresent, but the Human journey only progress's when those with courage and new horizons bring about a raising of consciousness .


Remains seem to think in a kind of either / or manner. For example they talk in terms of 'leaving Europe', which is profoundly mis-leading as we and the EU will of course want to quickly bring about a grown-up orderly settlement (after all they tell us Britian leaving will bring down the global finances), so they can sell us cars and wine and they enjoy continuing access to Britain's unparalleled intelligence gathering and experienced military and nuclear umbrella

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Tell me, which of The Treasury's last 4 quarters of predictions turned out correct?

Define correct. If you mean exact then you expect too much. Any predictions have a margin of error.

And now you tell me their forecasts 54 months hence can be relied upon?

As is often stated "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The forecast is using the best available model of the UK economy and is making realistic and defined assumptions. No serious person would claim that the predictions are exact but models based on credible assumptions do give some insight into the consequences of the alternative strategies post Brexit.

It is easy to attack the credibility of any model but no model is perfect. The model used is described in these terms.

All the elements of the analysis are brought together and combined in a global macroeconomic model maintained by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and used by the IMF, OECD, Bank of England and others

You say

Is your enquiring mind satisfied that the whole report ignored the many trade deals we will do across the world (Switzerland has 30 for example to include one with China - of course large nations like China find doing deals with single nations FAR easier than trying to accommodate the disparate needs of 28 EU nations which explains the lack of a China - EU trade deal)

They were not ignored for example:

On balance, this is likely to mean lower access to non-EU markets. But because there is no way of estimating the degree of reduced access with precision, a stylised modelling assumption is made that after 15 years the UK has replicated the scope of current trade access to non-EU countries that it currently enjoys but not beyond this. In practice this is unlikely.

Are you satisfied the document takes no account of the net 3 billion saved in EU membership fees until 2030, and the additional taxes and GDP that would flow from ALL of this remaining in Britain?

I am satisfied it has been considered. Clearly without analysing the model itself we have to rely on the professional integrity of those producing the report

The net impact on receipts would be £20 billion a year in the central case of the EEA, £36!billion a year in the case of the negotiated bilateral agreement, and £45!billion a year in the case of the WTO. This assumes in all three scenarios that the UK would not have to make any financial contribution to the EU at all. However, as set out above, an alternative that provides significant access to the Single Market would require financial contributions to the EU and so the fiscal impact would be higher.

Have you read the report?
Is there any analysis that suggests the HMT work is flawed?
Or any that provides credible evidence of a different outcome?

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

Define correct. If you mean exact then you expect too much. Any predictions have a margin of error.

Which 2002 large scale economic predictions do find useful today? Just give me your top 2.


I'll even allow those from 2003

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

The forecast is using the best available model of the UK economy and is making realistic and defined assumptions.

Which new trade deals across the globe did the models assume over the period?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

many racist expressions were shorthand ways of expressing an idea: most people have moved on and stopped using these terms

: find a different expression to describe people who believe in nation state democracy, in engaging with the whole world rather than limiting one's horizons to a group of white christian states and don't want unrestricted immigration from said group of states and believe that the EU management is incompetent and incapable of solving their problems.

With respect I did not use the term, I merely quoted a definition of it. It was Mr Brown who first used the expression and I have made my comment on that.

Shorthand phrases for ideas can be negative. Hardly profound.