Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

wunferall

Moby wrote: »

Lorna....Canada isn't in Europe.

Moby ............ Lorna didn't say it was.

Lornapink

Moby wrote: »

Lorna....Canada isn't in Europe.

I know awesome isn't it that they manage to get the fruit picked and nurses trained so they have sufficient health service staff supply, all magical things that somehow take place without them being in the marvellous EU.

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

You are correct. The most influential thinker on the planet, Professor Jordan Peterson (clinical psychologist, ex-Harvard) says we are all dumb and virtually incapable of understanding opponents. He and other's say educational attainment has no bearing whatsoever on ones ability to compute arguments counter to your position.

I think it goes deeper than this. I've disagreed with people before (surprising, huh?) and have stood corrected many times when I've turned out to be wrong.

Yet at no point in the past few years have I seen anything to convince me beyond "Yeah, I guess for your really obscure thing, that extra cost sucks".

For instance, it's often claimed that being able to forge new trading arrangements is good. On the face of it I agree, but when I ask for detail (like "what are we going to gain from a trading arrangement with Brazil?") there's never any response.

I'm not even actually against leaving the EU, or any other change. As long as there's something that merits the change. It's that justification that I just haven't seen yet.

Lornapink

wunferall wrote: »

Really?
Nothing to do with Brexit? This from a remainer insistent that we pay heed to government forecasts?

I've seen many a forecast or piece of 'bad' news going back 18 months cited by Remainers as evidence everything is about to unwind.


So many times they jump on 'fall in retail sales, Brexit the cause' that is replaced a month later with 'retailers welcome surprise surge in sales'. Over and over again yet still Remainers repeat the mistake.

Lornapink

Herzlos wrote: »

For instance, it's often claimed that being able to forge new trading arrangements is good. On the face of it I agree, but when I ask for detail (like "what are we going to gain from a trading arrangement with Brazil?") there's never any response.

Thing is you're deliberately posing questions that cannot be answered. We obviously cant say 'sales to Brazil will increase 4% over 15 years' as that would be to make the same amateur error Remainers do in citing numpty 15 yr fairy tales (it is well understood in economics that change leads to trillions of new thoughts in millions of minds that result in innovation & mitigation, one can't possibly forecast the UK economy even 2 years out, especially not when a major evolution like Brexit is underway).


RECALL THE ECONOMIC CONSENSUS IN EARLY 2017 WAS FOR A GLOBAL CONTRACTION. Totally wrong.


The Human journey was not something that we mapped-out in advance on a spread sheet. We didn't have forecasts as to how the East India adventure would turn out.


Brexit is an article of faith, but then so is remain as remaining would produce many a twist and turn.
THE RISKS OF REMAIN ARE MANY. You don't ask 'what GDP % are we loosing over the next 15 years as a result on not being able to FULLY participate in global growth'.

Herzlos

But I'm not asking for specifics like that. I just mean "we can import more bananas" or anything other than a soundbite about agile trade deals.

Why is a trade deal with ______ better than the trade deal with the EU?

How aren't we able to engage in global growth? What deals or growth are the EU preventing us from accessing?

I don't need to know specifics, like figures or manufacturers, but I'm not even getting wild guesses about industries.

Both sides contain some risk, but the risk is very much not equal. I need a lot more reassurance to jump into the unknown.

Moby

Lornapink wrote: »

I know awesome isn't it that they manage to get the fruit picked and nurses trained so they have sufficient health service staff supply, all magical things that somehow take place without them being in the marvellous EU.

The point is the EU is an institution that arose out of the ashes of the second world war to ensure European states would settle their differences in future without destructive wars and trade disputes. Look at our history and you'll see why. Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon, French revolution, Spanish empire etc. Germany and France before the EU were permanently at war or in dispute and we were always drawn in! The EU has also brought in the countries of Eastern Europe within its sphere and avoided them being under the influence of Putin's Russia with all the dangers that would entail. The EU is a politically driven organisation, not just an economically driven one. It has a wider ideal. Those who disagree with these ideals are ignoring what it has achieved and are leading us along a path which will inevitably increase the likelihood of conflict between us and our neighbours. If Canada was geographically in Europe, looking at the values of Trudeau and the generally socially liberal values of that country I would bet Canada would be in the EU as well.

wunferall

Herzlos wrote: »

But I'm not asking for specifics like that. I just mean "we can import more bananas" or anything other than a soundbite about agile trade deals.

Why is a trade deal with ______ better than the trade deal with the EU?

How aren't we able to engage in global growth? What deals or growth are the EU preventing us from accessing?

I don't need to know specifics, like figures or manufacturers, but I'm not even getting wild guesses about industries.

Both sides contain some risk, but the risk is very much not equal. I need a lot more reassurance to jump into the unknown.

These things have been posted and discussed frequently in this very thread. It seems that despite your requests for this information, what there is available to date has already been given. The only logical explanation is that you are choosing to ignore it.

Just one example being that it is far easier to make a trade deal nation-to-nation than a trade deal nation-to-27-disparate-countries-in-a-union. That's a major part of why CETA took eight years. EIGHT YEARS! Or do you not recall the Belgian spoke in the wheels?

Moby

Lornapink wrote: »

Thing is you're deliberately posing questions that cannot be answered. We obviously cant say 'sales to Brazil will increase 4% over 15 years' as that would be to make the same amateur error Remainers do in citing numpty 15 yr fairy tales (it is well understood in economics that change leads to trillions of new thoughts in millions of minds that result in innovation & mitigation, one can't possibly forecast the UK economy even 2 years out, especially not when a major evolution like Brexit is underway).


RECALL THE ECONOMIC CONSENSUS IN EARLY 2017 WAS FOR A GLOBAL CONTRACTION. Totally wrong.


The Human journey was not something that we mapped-out in advance on a spread sheet. We didn't have forecasts as to how the East India adventure would turn out.


Brexit is an article of faith, but then so is remain as remaining would produce many a twist and turn.
THE RISKS OF REMAIN ARE MANY. You don't ask 'what GDP % are we loosing over the next 15 years as a result on not being able to FULLY participate in global growth'.

You are correct when you say brexit is an article of faith.....but wrong to say remain is as well. No one can predict the future but we have over 40 years of stability in europe, (apart from the break up of Yugoslavia and that had nothing to do with the EU. The EU is a protective factor in our future. Our decision to break away makes our future more uncertain. That is an inevitable consequence. We will now be in competition with our closest neighbours and we will be badly outnumbered and will in all probability come off worst. China rules south east asia and makes strategic policy. Singapore, Malaysia etc follow. In future the French/German axis will decide what happens in Europe and we will be sidelined. The idea that people voted to leave the EU to establish entrepreneurial relationships in the rest of the world is naive. Some of the elite have that dream but by far the biggest factor was the desire to control borders and reduce immigration, a feeling predominantly felt in poorer communities in the North, Midlands and Wales. The richer South/London is very strongly remain. Ironically the poorer areas are predicted to be the regions that will now suffer the most.

wunferall

Moby wrote: »

The point is the EU is an institution that arose out of the ashes of the second world war to ensure European states would settle their differences in future without destructive wars and trade disputes. .................

How is that going, Moby?
Crimea and Ukraine are in Europe and the EU bears no small part in causing that.
Trade? TBH all that the EU have done is introduce protectionism. There are many examples and I would be happy to provide some.