EU Brexit impact - Treasury Analysis

mwpt

Conrad wrote: »

No sweetie, I'm in favour of farmers having to pay a fair days pay in the absence of resorting to a tidal wave of cheap imported labour, you know, like they used to

How do you determine a fair days pay?

cells

Conrad wrote: »

No sweetie, I'm in favour of farmers having to pay a fair days pay in the absence of resorting to a tidal wave of cheap imported labour, you know, like they used to


And yes food prices could rise, but given most of eat far too much, it will be a blessing in disguise

instead of a fair days pay maybe the result would be that the UK imports a few more ships of grains?

I read somewhere one ship delivery of base foods is enough to feed half a million people for a whole year so it would not take a lot to displace uk grown foods with ship imports

N1AK

cells wrote: »

i think you should separate the two. There is no need to link it to an out vote

Would a one time 6% crash in GDP for whatever reason be a negative? yes it would be a very bad negative. Would the world end no but its not nice having a 6% income cut

Hey, just take some satisfaction in the idea someone pro-exit is willing to consider the concept that leaving the EU might have any negative consequence.

A 6% decrease in GDP is a huge deal, it's effectively the same size as the 2008-2009 crisis fall. That crisis has left us with a decade of austerity, records government debts, real terms wage decreases, and other economic consequences that will last a lifetime. Current forecasts are that it'll take us 20 years to get government debt back to the level (in GDP% terms) it was at pre-crash.

When GDP falls the impact on the country is two-fold. Less economic activity means less pay or higher unemployment which means increases in welfare spending. Less economic activity also means less tax revenue as profits and incomes fall below expectations.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Hey, just take some satisfaction in the idea someone pro-exit is willing to consider the concept that leaving the EU might have any negative consequence.

A 6% decrease in GDP is a huge deal, it's effectively the same size as the 2008-2009 crisis fall. That crisis has left us with a decade of austerity, records government debts, real terms wage decreases, and other economic consequences that will last a lifetime. Current forecasts are that it'll take us 20 years to get government debt back to the level (in GDP% terms) it was at pre-crash.

When GDP falls the impact on the country is two-fold. Less economic activity means less pay or higher unemployment which means increases in welfare spending. Less economic activity also means less tax revenue as profits and incomes fall below expectations.

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

Rinoa

Not surprisingly, Osborne's treasury analysis is apparently based on an economic calculation discredited years ago.

http://order-order.com/2016/04/18/osbornes-equations-from-long-discredited-model/

westernpromise

All but 27 countries in the world aren't in the EU, including the USA, China and all the Commonwealth. They seem to be doing quite well.

The scaremongering is nonsense.

Miss_Samantha

cells wrote: »

instead of a fair days pay maybe the result would be that the UK imports a few more ships of grains?

Well, the UK already imports a lot because it isn't self-sufficient.

A big 'job' of the EU is to protect EU farmers so imports probably come mostly from the EU (as far as possible).

If UK farmers are no longer protected by the EU, imports may more easily come from outside the EU, and UK farmers will face competition from far cheaper countries (i.e. many will go bust).

Therefore the government may create protections on its own to replace the EU's. So that's already part of the "savings" of leaving the EU spent right here.

CLAPTON

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Well, the UK already imports a lot because it isn't self-sufficient.

A big 'job' of the EU is to protect EU farmers so imports probably come mostly from the EU (as far as possible).

If UK farmers are no longer protected by the EU, imports may more easily come from outside the EU, and UK farmers will face competition from far cheaper countries (i.e. many will go bust).

Therefore the government may create protections on its own to replace the EU's. So that's already part of the "savings" of leaving the EU spent right here.

Why is cheaper food would be against the interests of the vast majority of the people of the UK?
The whole purpose of trade is to gain mutual advantage by using the respective relative strengths of the people.

Miss_Samantha

CLAPTON wrote: »

Why is cheaper food would be against the interests of the vast majority of the people of the UK?

Why do you think it would mean cheaper food?

CLAPTON

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Why do you think it would mean cheaper food?

because the price of food on the international market is cheaper than that produced by the EU