Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Malthusian

phillw wrote: »

And in reply to your question, assume that pretty much everything that remain predicted would happen if we have a hard brexit is going to happen.

Remain predicted that a Leave vote would be immediately followed by a stockmarket crash, mass unemployment and a recession. No "Brexit hasn't happened yet" please, we were told that a Leave vote would result in an immediate collapse of confidence which would immediately be priced into the stockmarket and incorporated into business plans.

Remain promised that a Leave vote would be immediately followed by an Emergency Budget, sweeping real cuts to public services and 4p added to the rate of income tax. I say promised rather than predicted, because these are things that were under the direct control of Remain politicians.

Pretty much everything Remain predicted hasn't happened. So "assume that pretty much everything that remain predicted would happen if" is rather tricky.

"Brexit hasn't happened yet" is a fallacy because future economic events are instantly priced into the here and now. Even if the exact outcome of the future event is uncertain, the market's best guess is immediately priced in. If OPEC announces they'll increase the supply of oil next year, the price of oil will immediately drop, even though they haven't turned on any taps yet and even though nobody knows how many barrels the increase will be.

tracey3596

Oh dear.
Again, the post was not talking about an Ombudsman.

Vitriol because you are incorrect is unnecessary, even more so when vitriol is misplaced.

phillw

Malthusian wrote: »

Remain predicted that a Leave vote would be immediately followed by a stockmarket crash, mass unemployment and a recession.

Show me. My understanding was that it was always going to be a gradual change, because things like that never happen suddenly. We had an initial drop in the stock market after the result but then we had a drop in sterling, which is a good indication of no confidence. The stock market always swells on a currency drop, because of people looking to buy in now that their money buys more sterling. To get the true picture you need to look at who is buying and into what. The stock market rising doesn't do much for the majority of british citizens.

Malthusian wrote: »

No "Brexit hasn't happened yet" please, we were told that a Leave vote would result in an immediate collapse of confidence which would immediately be priced into the stockmarket and incorporated into business plans.

Businesses have been promised all manner of continuity since the referendum, which is likely to be impossible if we leave the customs union. It's obvious that they would delay any changes until it's clear what will happen. You can't use delaying tactics which will lead to the same conclusion as evidence you won't reach that conclusion eventually.

But you're right, nobody predicted Theresa May would try to pull off a confidence trick.

The DWP could learn a trick from your argument, terminal patients aren't dead yet so they must be faking it.

Malthusian wrote: »

Remain promised that a Leave vote would be immediately followed by an Emergency Budget, sweeping real cuts to public services and 4p added to the rate of income tax. I say promised rather than predicted, because these are things that were under the direct control of Remain politicians.

Instead of an emergency budget we had an emergency cut in interest rates. Which has reduced the amount of money coming into the governments coffers. It seems pretty equivalent. There have been real cuts to public services.

Malthusian wrote: »

"Brexit hasn't happened yet" is a fallacy because future economic events are instantly priced into the here and now.

You can't price something in when you have the UK government promising that staying will be zero cost, but moving your business to the EU will have a cost that is avoidable. Some jobs have been moved out to the EU already where there is a zero cost in moving. When Theresa Mays poker hand collapses then we'll see.

All the predictions were based on the idea of a hard brexit, which appears to be what Reese Mogg has told Theresa May to deliver. If we end up with brexit in name only then the effects will be minimal. If we end up with hard brexit outside the eu customs union then it would be naive to think that we wouldn't be back on track for the initial predictions.

phillw

ilovehouses wrote: »

You can add David Davis to that list. In 2012 he didn't think leaving the EU required us to leave the EU customs union either.

Or he was being purposefully misleading.

!!!8220;My preference would be that we should remain within the customs union of the EU [even though we would] give up some freedoms in terms of negotiating our trading arrangements with third countries,!!!8221; he said.

His preference is irrelevant and not an indication of what he thought was achievable or would implement even if it were.

Like the "let's fund our NHS instead" is no guarantee that the NHS will be funded.

That is politics for you.

Like shops that get you in with an "up to 50% off sale" which absolutely guarantees that in no way will they ever give you more than 50% off, it has no bearing on whether you will be given any discount at all. They may as well say "up to 100% off sale" and then apologise that every item you want is not in it.

tracey3596 wrote: »

Oh dear.
Again, the post was not talking about an Ombudsman.

It is relevant because you were either implying there was no transparency in the EU or that the transparency wasn't working (your argument was unclear because you spent too much time ROFL).

https://www.euractiv.com/section/all/interview/hubner-the-european-union-is-more-transparent-than-national-governments/

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-ombudsman-councils-behind-closed-doors-approach-alienates-eu-citizens/

It seems inconvenient to your argument that there is more transparency in the EU than the UK.

Nobody is saying that nothing bad happens in transparent organisations, but they are more likely to get spotted. Weinstein company was not transparent, oxfam was not transparent. Then they were both forced to be transparent.

If you judge transparent organisations on what they admit to, then you'll always miss the big picture.

tracey3596 wrote: »

Vitriol because you are incorrect is unnecessary, even more so when vitriol is misplaced.

No vitriol, however I am waiting for your apology on your lies about what was on the ballot paper and then your subsequent insults you threw at me for calling you out. You seem to be hoping that you can just gloss over it.

In case you forgot, here is where you claim multiple questions were on the referendum ballot.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5725592
Then you say I'm lying and insult me and then lie again about the question on the ballot.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5725592

The question on the ballot paper was "'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' There were two answers "Remain a member of the European Union", "Leave the European Union". It said nothing about Single Market, Customs Union, Freedom of movement, etc.

wunferall

ilovehouses wrote: »

You can add David Davis to that list. In 2012 he didn't think leaving the EU required us to leave the EU customs union either.

Ancient history by current standards.

In 2012 Harvey Weinstein was still adored and the EU decided little by qualified majority. Times change you see. It might be an easier and less- painful idea to move with the changes rather than as so many remainers seem to do, try and fight against change.

Theophile

ilovehouses wrote: »

Liam Fox is trying to transform his own opinion on the subject into fact using the medium of shouty language

Did he use the :rotfl: smiley a lot?
Seems to be a favourite with brexiteers running out of logic, facts, arguments and manners.

Rough_Justice

More EU bluster from Barnier.
Time running out for Brexit transition deal - EU negotiator

The European Union’s chief negotiator said Britain was running out of time to agree a transitional deal with the European Union on its departure from the bloc, if it wanted to avoid a cliff edge Brexit - an exit with no divorce deal.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-barnier-warning/time-running-out-for-brexit-transition-deal-eu-negotiator-idUKKCN1GB1TC

Hang on, only three weeks ago this same EU Commission refused extra talks!

A second high-ranking U.K. official said London is seeking a “continuous” negotiation. British negotiating teams will still go to Brussels next week, the first official said, “and are ready to negotiate.”

“But it seems the Commission are refusing to do so,”

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-uk-accuses-eu-of-refusing-to-speed-up-brexit-talks/

Now what was that about wanting cake and eating it?

phillw

Rough_Justice wrote: »

Hang on, only three weeks ago this same EU Commission refused extra talks!

I'm not there, but my impression is that the talks are a waste of time with the UK wanting three baskets of cakes and the EU saying no.

So they can reasonably say that time is running out & they are not willing to spend more time talking until the UK changes it's position.

With both sides sticking to their red lines (which are incompatible) there is not going to be any movement.

Rough_Justice

Theophile wrote: »

Did he use the :rotfl: smiley a lot?
Seems to be a favourite with brexiteers running out of logic, facts, arguments and manners.

That is funny.
Especially when "the remainers" favourite seems to be derision and if that fails, downright lies judging from these last few pages.
It's also remarkable how it is remainers carping on and yet never mentioning their own multiple sock puppets and dopplegangers.

BobQ

Tromking wrote: »

As usual the democratic imperative to leave the EU and its incumbent treaties is ignored.

buglawton wrote: »

I’m sure that all kinds of doom and gloom were predicted when the vote for women or abolition of slavery were proposed. Luckily arguments of convenience didn’t prevent these things from happening.

Leaving is not the issue, that will happen. The issue is how we implement that exit and what represents the best deal for the country, not for the party or the individual.