Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

mayonnaise

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Home Office is either staggeringly incompetent or duplicitous, untrustworthy, and downright vindictive when it comes to matters of migration and migrants rights.

Quite....

Ex-mayor of Ipswich denied citizenship after almost 40 years in UK

Home Office tells Inga Lockington, who moved from Denmark in 1979, it ‘cannot be satisfied’ she is permanently resident

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/23/ex-mayor-of-ipswich-inga-lockington-denied-citizenship-after-almost-40-years-in-uk

Arklight

Rinoa wrote: »

Here's BoE take on it:



BoE claim Household expenditure is by far the biggest element. So an extra 10% more immigration will add approximately 10% to GDP.

Here is the link to the full BOE page from where you've handily taken that infographic and stripped it of context:

http://edu.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-gdp/

What’s not captured in GDP statistics?
GDP growth, however, is not the whole story when gauging how well economies are doing.

To begin with, some things have a lot of value but are not captured in GDP because no money changes hands. Caring for an elderly relative would be one example of this. As Einstein once said, “Not all that can be counted counts”.

GDP also doesn’t tell us anything about how evenly income is split across the population. Growth could mean everyone becoming better off or just the richest segment getting even richer. In practice it usually lies somewhere between the two.

Next, it helps to bear in mind changes in the size of the population. If UK GDP rose by 2% next year, but the population grew by 4%, then average income per person would actually have fallen.

Finally, there are things which raise GDP that don’t make the country better off. War is one example (a lot of money is spent, so GDP goes up). Or if a large chunk of the Amazon rainforest was cut down in one week, then you’d get a sharp rise in GDP from the sales of timber but at huge environmental cost.

mayonnaise

Tory Brexiteers' customs system could cost business up to £20BILLION a year - and won't be ready on time

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/hmrc-says-brexiteers-preferred-customs-12584561?utm_source=google_news&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=google_news&utm_content=sitemap

Oh dear, oh dear...

Rinoa

Herzlos wrote: »

We could try but the money has never had anything to do with the deal,

Don't know where you got that idea.

The EU were very clear from the beginning. They wanted our so called 'debts' resolved first, then they would agree to talk about trade.

Herzlos

Rinoa wrote: »

Don't know where you got that idea.

The EU were very clear from the beginning. They wanted our so called 'debts' resolved first, then they would agree to talk about trade.

Indeed they did. Debts sorted, then onto the trade deal.


But that doesn't mean the trade deals have anything to do with the debt payment. we're not buying trade access with the money (as May implied), the money gets us nothing but a clean financial slate.


We'll pay the same £39bn (agreed) regardless of whether we get a trade deal or what it looks like, so there's just no mileage in Moggs "no deal no money" thing.

Graham_Devon

ilovehouses wrote: »

Fine if you work on the 'what you never had you won't miss' principle.



Comparing the present against a non-brexit alternative is the only way to consider the impact of brexit. Assumptions are required.

The brexit committee's own assumptions suggested a loss of 8% of GDP over the next 12 years. It would be silly to get excited about the success of brexit if GDP increased by 17% over that time when the non-brexit baseline was expected to be 25%.

And considering all the assumptions for when we voted brexit haven't happened - do you feel it's wise to stick to the assumptions the same people made about staying in?

Tromking

Our Remain friends on here seem suddenly emboldened for some reason.
Lest they forget the political imperative to leave the EU and do it to a level that meets the expectations of the 17.4 million leave voters. Anything else and a constitutional crisis ensues.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

Comparing the present against a non-brexit alternative is the only way to consider the impact of brexit. Assumptions are required.

The brexit committee's own assumptions suggested a loss of 8% of GDP over the next 12 years. It would be silly to get excited about the success of brexit if GDP increased by 17% over that time when the non-brexit baseline was expected to be 25%.

Germany is most certainly slowing down. They've no current issues with Brexit. Perhaps the causes are of a wider nature. Japan still remains the example of an economy which suffered the double whammy of a credit bust and an ageing population. Despite the Central Banks propping up the system. Perhaps we are now getting the sting in the tail. After all was never going to be a free lunch.

buglawton

Rinoa wrote: »

Don't know where you got that idea.

The EU were very clear from the beginning. They wanted our so called 'debts' resolved first, then they would agree to talk about trade.

Contractually we've got unpaid commitments in the future. An honest and fair figure and a payment schedule will have to be agreed. That's all a known.

Now, what about the capital value that's been built up as a result of all the contributions the UK made in the past? That part of it that's gone into EU institutional real estate? Do we get a schedule for the EU buying back our share?

Herzlos

buglawton wrote: »

Contractually we've got unpaid commitments in the future. An honest and fair figure and a payment schedule will have to be agreed. That's all a known.

Now, what about the capital value that's been built up as a result of all the contributions the UK made in the past? That part of it that's gone into EU institutional real estate? Do we get a schedule for the EU buying back our share?

We've not been bought out; we left. I'm not sure we're allowed anything back beyond the EU investment bank, for which we have a repayment schedule.