IMF says leaving the EU is a significant risk.

Running_Horse

Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, has warned that if Britain was to leave the European Union the impact would range from "pretty bad to very, very bad".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36291183

Meanwhile in other news...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/head-of-the-imf-christine-lagarde-in-court-charged-with-embezzlement-and-fraud-8628670.html

The head of the International Monetary Fund arrived in the dock of a Paris courtroom today as she braced herself to be formally charged with embezzlement and fraud.

HornetSaver

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the EU is institutionally corrupt.

Can we really expect the terms being forecast without paying some form of bribe? I'm oversimplifying obviously, and not suggesting that it's an argument for remaining, but it would be grounds to question the outlook if we were to leave.

Everyone knows nothing worthwhile will change if we remain - even the government have given up trying to argue otherwise. Thus, the question is, is leaving worth doing regardless of the knock-on effects? Consensus opinion is "no", otherwise we wouldn't bother with the campaign due to the inevitability of a leave victory, and would simply have had a snap poll to rubber stamp Brexit.

Therefore, the debate is over what post-leave scenario is the most realistic and whether that would be better than remaining. Accusing your opponents of being corrupt actually undermines the argument that we would get a good deal with Europe because it would be rational for them to deal with us in good faith.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the EU is institutionally corrupt.

Can we really expect the terms being forecast without paying some form of bribe? I'm oversimplifying obviously, and not suggesting that it's an argument for remaining, but it would be grounds to question the outlook if we were to leave.

Everyone knows nothing worthwhile will change if we remain - even the government have given up trying to argue otherwise. Thus, the question is, is leaving worth doing regardless of the knock-on effects? Consensus opinion is "no", otherwise we wouldn't bother with the campaign due to the inevitability of a leave victory, and would simply have had a snap poll to rubber stamp Brexit.

Therefore, the debate is over what post-leave scenario is the most realistic and whether that would be better than remaining. Accusing your opponents of being corrupt actually undermines the argument that we would get a good deal with Europe because it would be rational for them to deal with us in good faith.

no the argument is that the IMF is usually wrong
and the consensus views were
-the UK should have joined the euro otherwise we were certain to collapse
-the consensus failed to predict the financial meltdown in 2007-8
-the consensus has been consistently wrong every single year since 2007.
-the consensus can't even solve the problems of a small insignificant country like greece.
-all evidence shows that the EU doesn't behave 'rationally' but politically.

kabayiri

I reckon most people don't know 90% of what the EU does, or if they did, they probably don't care.

The referendum is a pretence about being all things but it's really the issue of migration.

It's not just migration, because people are inconsistent on that. We don't seem to mind rich Americans; Chinese; Russians coming here to buy big houses, spend money etc.

It's migration of poorer people - protectionism then.

People think the government should help protect jobs. I think they are misguided frankly.

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

I reckon most people don't know 90% of what the EU does, or if they did, they probably don't care.

The referendum is a pretence about being all things but it's really the issue of migration.

It's not just migration, because people are inconsistent on that. We don't seem to mind rich Americans; Chinese; Russians coming here to buy big houses, spend money etc.

It's migration of poorer people - protectionism then.

People think the government should help protect jobs. I think they are misguided frankly.

actually the vast majority of people do not object to immigration : it is the scale of the migration that is reducing the quality of people lives.

and actually lots of people object to rich people coming here and buying big houses.

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

no the argument is that the IMF is usually wrong
and the consensus views were
-the UK should have joined the euro otherwise we were certain to collapse

There was never a consensus on that among the British electorate. Ever.

-the consensus failed to predict the financial meltdown in 2007-8

True (though that goes for those already opposed to the EU at that stage as much as anyone else)

-the consensus has been consistently wrong every single year since 2007.

I take it we're talking about the UK here? More accurately, Labour got it wrong from 2007-2010, everyone correctly predicted a rubbish 2010-2012, the coalition more or less got it right 2012 to 2015, and the Tories seem to have been wrong since the last general election (I'm talking about economic forecasting all the way through here, not policies).

-the consensus can't even solve the problems of a small insignificant country like greece.

Among nationals of most of the other EU states there's a consensus that Greece would be better off out of the EU, but the Greek people don't want to leave and the other governments are terrified of throwing them out. Personally I wish they had, because if we leave we are going to take the political blame and the resulting irrational political consequences for breaking up the EU, whereas if Greece had lanced the boil there'd be no resentment towards them and a bit more acceptance that the whole thing has spiralled out of control - i.e. that Britain's soft Euroscepticism (uneasy, negotiating many opt-outs other countires could only dream of, but ultimately still a part of it in the interests of maintaining a strong political and trading position) was the correct approach all along.

-all evidence shows that the EU doesn't behave 'rationally' but politically.

Which is exactly what I said. And why on the one hand there is an argument to distance ourselves from it, yet on the other it's a completely bizarre argument to say that if we leave altogether they'll be gagging to do a deal with us on the terms we want.

wymondham

The IMF has a great track record with its predictions doesn't it....

Generali

wymondham wrote: »

The IMF has a great track record with its predictions doesn't it....

You could as easily say the same of any organisation that makes economic predictions. It's not like the IMF is uniquely bad.

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

actually the vast majority of people do not object to immigration : it is the scale of the migration that is reducing the quality of people lives.

and actually lots of people object to rich people coming here and buying big houses.

London was a shabby place in the eighties when people were leaving in droves. Now it's a the world Capital after two decades of fresh blood.

I don't see what there is to not like. If you missed the house price boat, go to the next up and coming cities to London and keep immigration raising and with good leadership, the same will happen their.

angrypirate

wymondham wrote: »

The IMF has a great track record with its predictions doesn't it....

It does have a great track record - basically listen to what it says and then do the opposite.

Generali

angrypirate wrote: »

It does have a great track record - basically listen to what it says and then do the opposite.

Which organisation has a great record of economic prediction do you think?

It's easy to mock and dismiss but nobody is good at this stuff and I am pretty sure that the IMF is a damn sight better at this than the naysayers.

Why don't you put your neck on the line, what will inflation, unemployment and growth rates be in the G7 countries at the end of 2016?