BREXIT - Why?

bowlhead99

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Cobblers, trying to predict anything in fourteen years time is pure fantasy.

You really do talk some tosh.

You said that you'd heard we will be worse off by £3k if we leave than if we stay. (The figure from Treasury ranged from £2600 to £5200 with the middle option at £4300 per household, £36bn). Then you asked how much we'd be better off by if we stay. Well, clearly if we accept £3k is the amount we're worse off by going compared to staying, then £3k is the amount we're better off by staying compared to going. It's not rocket science.

So, someone responds to that effect and you say haha it was a trick question because £3k wasn't the right number...

Hardly encourages people to play your game.

I'm predicting it will be raining in Westminster on the 21st may 2030, at 11:30am

That is just as likely to happen is the £3k difference

Well, your prediction is worthless because it's something you pulled out of your asss. You didn't even try to consult a model of weather patterns and just came up with a coin toss of it'll be raining or not.

Whereas, the £3k difference was something that came from a complicated economic model with a load of variables related to tariffs and policy which someone built for forecasting the effect of exiting the EU and eventually moving to a Canada-style free trade agreement or a Norway option with eventual access to the single market, versus not doing that.

Here is another question no one can answer.

Today, 20 May 2016, and exactly a year ago, 20 May 2015, how much did the uk receive from the eu, and how much did we contribute?

My guess is £0 because neither today nor exactly a year ago today did the UK receive or pay any money to or from the EU because they don't transfer the payments on the 20th of the month.

Do I win a cookie?

bigfreddiel

You do win a cookie! Well done!

I like your answer as well. You're beginning to see how this game is played now, bit like Mornington Crescent!

So we're agreed in or out will make no difference so we may as well vote OUT.

let's pose another little question, over the past twenty years on a year by year breakdown totals of money in and out of the EU for the UK.

Cheers fj

uk1

Anyone who has had any experience of financial modelling knows that seemingly small changes in assumptions makes enormous differences over a long planning period. Just look at the effect of compound interest over 15 years and how relatively small changes in the interest rate used in a spreadsheet has an enormous difference after say 15 years. Small changes in the underlying assumptions could easily reverse those numbers.

The main failing in the whole basis of the treasury model is the presumption we will have a deal that mirrors the Canadian deal. The problem with that presumption is that our starting point is that we would start those talks against the background of a complete current harmonisation of laws as we would depart but are currently fully compliant. Canada wasn't.

Secondly the presumptions do not seem to take account that our exports to the EU is on a continuously reducing trend which implies that each year more of our trade is with the rest of the world. It is a reasonable assumption that this trend will continue. Why not? So that reliance on EU trade will be less and less important each year. A departure might accelerate trade with the rest of the world. The assumptions in the treasury model conveniently ignores that.

I could go on, but you can make a model say whatever you want it to by the wheight you choose to increase or factors you choose to ignore ignore.

Finally, all ecocomists lose their credibility when they claim to be able to model anything like this 15 years out. It is simply dishonest.

Jeff

chockydavid1983

Huh? Regardless of who is right, there's no way of coming to the conclusion of the fj post based on the content of the one before lol.

aspiration_2

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Whereas, the £3k difference was something that came from a complicated economic model with a load of variables related to tariffs and policy which someone built for forecasting the effect of exciting the EU and eventually moving to a Canada-style free trade agreement or a Norway option with eventual access to the single market, versus not doing that.

Hi Bowlhead. Nice to hear you in this thread. Please have a cookie!

No complicated algorithm is going to predict anything correctly because of unforseen changes and adjustments. After all our civil servants predicted that only 15,000 eastern europeans were likely to enter UK. Obviously they did not know the difference between millions and thousands.

bowlhead99

aspiration wrote: »

No complicated algorithm is going to predict anything correctly because of unforseen changes and adjustments.

In that case we shouldn't even bother to try then. Treasury, BoE, IMF and OECD are barking up the wrong tree if they think we should try to work out what might happen if we stay or leave. We should just accept that we can't project the future to the nearest pound and therefore there's no point in even considering the consequences of our actions.

Vote Freddie fj, what could go wrong! Cheers

savings_my_hobby

bowlhead99 wrote: »

We should just accept that we can't project the future to the nearest pound and therefore there's no point in even considering the consequences of our actions.

Or just accept the premise that we don't know how Brexit will affect our household incomes in 2030.

Not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

uk1

bowlhead99 wrote: »

In that case we shouldn't even bother to try then. Treasury, BoE, IMF and OECD are barking up the wrong tree if they think we should try to work out what might happen if we stay or leave. We should just accept that we can't project the future to the nearest pound and therefore there's no point in even considering the consequences of our actions.

Whilst you cannot "project to the nearest pound" or indeed billion, I don't think it follows that you shouldn't consider the consequences of your actions.

My instincts are that an exit will cost us a bit of a hit economically for a few years, but then we will be better off than if we had remained, due partly because I think unbridled we will do better and mostly because at the same time the EU is heading towards a situation of worsening economics whilst assuming greater burdens. It doesn't matter so much to me because the issue isn't purely about which option will pay us most, but more about old fashioned sovereignty.

I think many misunderstood what Boris cack-handedly said, and it would actually take some courage to be clear. He was basically saying in my view that millions had sacrificed their lives during two wars to protect freedom and we shouldn't simply sleep walk into giving it away . I agree.

And tonights new scare is

"In the event of a vote for Brexit, by 2018, houses could be worth up to 18% less than if the UK voted to remain, George Osborne told the BBC."

Jeff

savings_my_hobby

uk1 wrote: »

And tonights new scare is

"In the event of a vote for Brexit, by 2018, houses could be worth up to 18% less than if the UK voted to remain, George Osborne told the BBC."

considering he hit landlords in the last budget to make BTL a less attractive investment and has largely failed to "get Britain building again" if he is telling the truth (big if) then Brexit could be the best thing to ever happen to first time buyers. 18% is a huge discount.

uk1

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

considering he hit landlords in the last budget to make BTL a less attractive investment and has largely failed to "get Britain building again" if he is telling the truth (big if) then Brexit could be the best thing to ever happen to first time buyers. 18% is a huge discount.

If you read the small print, it isn't a reduction. It is simply not increasing as much as it would have done. Supposedly.