Will Brexit really be good for Britain?

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

The tiny (in relative terms) of the cost to the UK is far outweighed by the benefit to British businesses of hassle free exports and ease of doing business with 500 million people.

It also makes goods cheaper for the UK consumer for exactly the same reason in reverse.

Not really a redistribution in wealth if we look at the overall picture, is it?

so, using the same strange logic, If Poland, Romainia etc were instructed to pay the UK billions per year, it wouldn't really be a redistribution if you looked at the overall picture.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

That membership of the EU is a net economic benefit to the UK and increases our standards of living is clearly understood and not really disputed by anyone credible.

From fullfact....

The reasons to expect lower national income if the UK leaves the EU are well-established – prolonged uncertainty, reduced access to the single market, and reduced investment from overseas. Each of these would be highly likely and the overwhelming weight of evidence is that each would be damaging for the living standards of UK households.

https://fullfact.org/europe/economic-consequences-leaving-eu/

What this means to ordinary people and is already being seen....

Consequently, leaving the EU would, relative to staying in, be likely to result in:

- Lower real wages;

- A lower value of the pound – and hence higher prices for goods and services;

- Higher borrowing, lower public spending or higher taxes;

- In the short run, higher unemployment.

https://fullfact.org/europe/economic-consequences-leaving-eu/

Since the vote in June....

1) The low pay commission has already revised downwards it's assessment of the minimum wage growth over the next few years. By 2020 minimum wage will not now hit £9 per hour - but £8.50 instead. That is a real cost to low paid people directly attributable to Brexit.

2) Lower value of the Pound: Already happened - 15% devaluation - inflation now rising as a result. A hit to living standards of UK people directly attributable to Brexit.

3) Higher borrowing - Already happening - the Chancellor has been forced to abandon targets for a balanced budget and increase UK borrowing plans by £100 Billion plus over the next few years - a decrease in national wealth directly attributable to Brexit

4) Lower employment - Already happening - Latest ONS figures show a 6,000 fall in the number of people in work - while the number of people claiming unemployment benefits also rose by 2,400 in November

The negative impacts associated with leaving the EU are already happening exactly as forecast.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

so, using the same strange logic, If Poland, Romainia etc were instructed to pay the UK billions per year, it wouldn't really be a redistribution if you looked at the overall picture.

The issue is of course not so much that we are net contributors but that there are too few net contributors out of the 28 states.

The average Polish or Romanian citizen has benefitted enormously in the last decade. Billions of euros of EU investment. Access to higher value labour markets for millions. Relocation of major plants such as Cadburys.

They should obviously pay far more, and UK gain more money from the social cohesion fund.

We have a lot of social cohesion to sort out!

Masomnia

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

4) Lower employment - Already happening - Latest ONS figures show a 6,000 fall in the number of people in work - while the number of people claiming unemployment benefits also rose by 2,400 in November .

That's not what your quote says though, is it? Good attempt though.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That membership of the EU is a net economic benefit to the UK and increases our standards of living is clearly understood and not really disputed by anyone credible.

From fullfact....


https://fullfact.org/europe/economic-consequences-leaving-eu/

What this means to ordinary people and is already being seen....


https://fullfact.org/europe/economic-consequences-leaving-eu/

Since the vote in June....

1) The low pay commission has already revised downwards it's assessment of the minimum wage growth over the next few years. By 2020 minimum wage will not now hit £9 per hour - but £8.50 instead. That is a real cost to low paid people directly attributable to Brexit.

what is the low pay commissions track record on economic forecasting? The minimum wage is an ENTIRELY political decision.

2) Lower value of the Pound: Already happened - 15% devaluation - inflation now rising as a result. A hit to living standards of UK people directly attributable to Brexit.

The fall was inevitable due to the huge balnce of payments deficit;

3) Higher borrowing - Already happening - the Chancellor has been forced to abandon targets for a balanced budget and increase UK borrowing plans by £100 Billion plus over the next few years - a decrease in national wealth directly attributable to Brexit

the chancellor had 'abandoned' this borrowing forecasts for EVERY single years since 2010: so shows absolutely consistancy and NO change due to brexit.

4) Lower employment - Already happening - Latest ONS figures show a 6,000 fall in the number of people in work - while the number of people claiming unemployment benefits also rose by 2,400 in November

these are not seasonaly adjusted and we have very high emplyment figures

The negative impacts associated with leaving the EU are already happening exactly as forecast.

not one single negative brexit forecast has yet happened.

Masomnia

CLAPTON wrote: »

not one single negative brexit forecast has yet happened.

Indeed they haven't. Only really the fall in the £, but from the way it was trading in the run up to the referendum that was pretty obvious it would fall in the wake of the vote. Fell further as a result of the rate cut and more QE too.

I think it's fair to say no one really knows what will happen.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Masomnia wrote: »

That's not what your quote says though, is it? Good attempt though.

You can try to argue semantics (actually it's all you've got left to argue really) all you like - the quote said higher unemployment - and on two of the three key measures that's happening.... there are fewer people in work and more people claiming unemployment benefit in the latest figures.

No doubt (and very sadly) the third relevant measure - the unemployment survey - will also show bad news shortly.

Current unemployment survey figures showed the unemployment rate stayed steady at 4.8% compared to the previous period. But also showed a rise in "economic inactivity" - 76,000 higher than in the previous period.

Any way you cut it there are fewer people working, more claiming unemployment benefits, and even larger numbers not working and not (yet) claiming benefits.

Doesn't exactly look good does it?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

The issue is of course not so much that we are net contributors but that there are too few net contributors

If I pay you 8 billion in membership fees and you give me 80 billion back in economic benefits I don't really care if you then give the 8 billion I paid to someone else who then uses much of it to buy goods from me or improve their economy so that they buy even more goods from me in future...

To let the politics of envy control such a decision would be - well - madness.....

Masomnia

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You can try to argue semantics (actually it's all you've got left to argue really) all you like - the quote said higher unemployment - and on two of the three key measures that's happening.... there are fewer people in work and more people claiming unemployment benefit in the latest figures.

No doubt (and very sadly) the third relevant measure - the unemployment survey - will also show bad news shortly.

Current unemployment survey figures showed the unemployment rate stayed steady at 4.8% compared to the previous period. But also showed a rise in "economic inactivity" - 76,000 higher than in the previous period.

Any way you cut it there are fewer people working, more claiming unemployment benefits, and even larger numbers not working and not (yet) claiming benefits.

Doesn't exactly look good does it?

There is one measure of 'unemployment' and it's lower.

I think it's fair to say that the labour market has slowed. That said the rate of unemployment is not going to fall significantly from 4.8% in any case; there's a natural level of unemployment that will always be there.

Thrugelmir

Masomnia wrote: »

There is one measure of 'unemployment' and it's lower.

I think it's fair to say that the labour market has slowed. That said the rate of unemployment is not going to fall significantly from 4.8% in any case; there's a natural level of unemployment that will always be there.

As an observation. The total number of people in employment has fallen. Perhaps a sign of the UK's ageing population.