EU Brexit impact - Treasury Analysis

Tromking

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of course there is no democracy deficit.

The UK Parliament can leave the EU at any time should we disagree vehemently enough with any EU policy.

No referendum is required.

Just a simple majority vote in parliament.

I think that the use of referenda is wholly appropriate with decisions of this magnitude. More importantly so do the political class.
Legitimacy is key when deciding about the possible loss or displacement of sovereignty to another institution. An institution which in my opinion is less accountable and less democratic than our national parliament.

Rinoa

Economists have difficulty predicting GDP quarter to quarter with any degree of accuracy, and yet the Treasury are able to tell us what our GDP will be 14 years hence.

Fortunately very few people will be fooled and it's more likely they will feel sufficiently insulted by the Remain camps antics and vote Leave.

Wenlock

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.

Will the tax take from these additional people cover the costs of the extra schools, hospitals etc that they will require? What will the effect be on the housing crisis?

I am more interested in the GDP per person rather than the total size of the economy.

Miss_Samantha

Interestingly, if the population growth is stopped then by definition the ratio of elderly to working age people will get worse and worse and thus the NHS and pensions will be under increased pressure.

When it comes to schools, hospitals, and infrastructure in general immigration is simply a scapegoat. The key issue is that the government does not want to invest, and perhaps also that we do not want to pay for proper infrastructure.

cells

michaels wrote: »

Except that:
1) the economy is way more than 6% smaller than we would have predicted in 2007 and we have coped.

Taxes are a good deal higher now.
45% band. CGT up. Stamp duty up. VAT up.
and the state credit card was used from 30%? to 80%? Of GDP to get through it.

Would higher taxes lower spending and more on the state credit card be worth it?

cells

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Interestingly, if the population growth is stopped then by definition the ratio of elderly to working age people will get worse and worse and thus the NHS and pensions will be under increased pressure.

When it comes to schools, hospitals, and infrastructure in general immigration is simply a scapegoat. The key issue is that the government does not want to invest, and perhaps also that we do not want to pay for proper infrastructure.

or the third option

That we actually have a sufficient good base of infrastructure


Do we have a shortage of electricity water gas?

Do we have a shortage of offices industrial units warehouses or retail units?

Also construction is a significant part of GDP and jobs. If the population stopped growing right now we would find that portion of the economy and jobs disappear. We would also likely find that some towns and cities fair quite badly. There is a general shift south and to london so without migration we might find a falling population in the north and midlands with all the problems that will bring. I dont see that discussed much maybe overlooked.

cells

michaels wrote: »

The GFC seems to have resulted in GDP per capita 16% below trend as of 2015. And yes it has been very unpleasant. But it is 16% and it has been bearable. A 6% worse case scenario (for total GDP, not sure what the per head will be but presumably less) is thus a high price but not one that should be rejected out of hand before considering whether there might be other advantages - such as increased sovereignty, cheaper food, reduced inequality to name just three.

I have no idea where that graph came from or its data but if you look at it the red line is less than 10% away from the blue one not 16% so whats up with that?

Somewhat a side topic but so many variables in an economy its hard to tell whats what. For a start the UK oil and gas industry experienced a period of rapid decline from 2007-2015.
Oil output down more than 50%, Gas output down more than 50%. Coal output down more than 50%.

Steel industry also started dieing around 2007/8 and it continues its slow death.

Things like that I dont think have anything to do with the banking crash but were natural events that would have happened anyway although on a graph they get missed and attibuted to those dam banks crashing the economy

michaels

cells wrote: »

I have no idea where that graph came from or its data but if you look at it the red line is less than 10% away from the blue one not 16% so whats up with that?

Somewhat a side topic but so many variables in an economy its hard to tell whats what. For a start the UK oil and gas industry experienced a period of rapid decline from 2007-2015.
Oil output down more than 50%, Gas output down more than 50%. Coal output down more than 50%.

Steel industry also started dieing around 2007/8 and it continues its slow death.

Things like that I dont think have anything to do with the banking crash but were natural events that would have happened anyway although on a graph they get missed and attibuted to those dam banks crashing the economy

16% came from the article surrounding the graph. Re the rest of your post, you agree with me that given 'everything else' that might happen in the period to different sectors of the economy, a six percent difference in GDP (total not per head) by 2030 would be noticeable but not world changing.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

or the third option

That we actually have a sufficient good base of infrastructure


Do we have a shortage of electricity water gas?

Do we have a shortage of offices industrial units warehouses or retail units?

Also construction is a significant part of GDP and jobs. If the population stopped growing right now we would find that portion of the economy and jobs disappear. We would also likely find that some towns and cities fair quite badly. There is a general shift south and to london so without migration we might find a falling population in the north and midlands with all the problems that will bring. I dont see that discussed much maybe overlooked.

if we had a lower population then we would indeed expect fewer jobs.
Building a lot of infrastructure we don't need doesn't make us 'richer'.
A larger population does, however, mean, that even fewer young people can expect to live in a family sized property.

RJP33

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

The laws of the EU are drafted and adopted by the EU Parliament. MEPs are elected by the citizens of the EU.

Other decisions are taken by agreement amongst the member states, whose governments are elected by their citizens.

Laws begin with the Commission, not the EU Parliament which only votes on laws that the Commission recommend.

In addition the UK has roughly 9% of votes and thus its common for laws to be binding on the UK without the consent of the UK parliament and people. I believe we've lost virtually every vote we've opposed.

Clearly there will be economic damage, at least initially, from a Brexit but to try and claim there's no democratic deficit is absurd.