Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

wunferall

mayonnaise wrote: »

Shame on you for continuing to peddle fake news, and to top it off, telling other posters they've lost it.

Shame on you for peddling fake news whilst accusing others.

From your own link:

Publishing Treasury analysis, he said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.

Over two years on from this supposed "immediate" shock the UK continues to grow while some major EU economies are either in recession or stagnate.
Over two years on from this supposed "immediate" shock and the UK continues to see employment levels way above that of the EU average; UK unemployment = 4% vs France 8.8%; Italy 10.5%; Eurozone average 7.8%.
UK wages are rising faster than inflation 3.4% vs 1.8%) so people are wealthier.


Please do not accuse others of peddling "fake news" when your own carefully-chosen selective figures and quotes make it perfectly clear just who is being less than genuine.

phillw

wunferall wrote: »

Shame on you for peddling fake news whilst accusing others

Forecasting is hard. It's not a lie because they believed what they said, while leave told things they knew not to be true and had literally made up & have no basis in reality. I know which I'd want moving forward, I don't understand why you'd choose the people who lie.

Things haven't been that great since brexit... https://fullfact.org/economy/pound-fallen-since-brexit/

The UK’s economic growth is not quite the slowest in Europe. The UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) has grown by 1.5%, comparing July-September 2017 to the same period the year before. That’s slower than every EU country except Denmark and Greece (although there’s no data yet for Ireland and Luxembourg), and the average rate among EU members is 2.6%.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

The UK’s economic growth is not quite the slowest in Europe. The UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) has grown by 1.5%, comparing July-September 2017 to the same period the year before. That’s slower than every EU country except Denmark and Greece (although there’s no data yet for Ireland and Luxembourg), and the average rate among EU members is 2.6%.

When did the ECB stop pumping cheap money into the Eurozone banking system though?

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

When did the ECB stop pumping cheap money into the Eurozone banking system though?

Why does that matter? You're arguing about outcomes, not about how they were achieved.

Confidence in the UK hasn't completely collapsed as the government are still promising frictionless trade & no problem hiring as many people from abroad as they need, which is something they will either have to stop promising soon or figure out how they can achieve that without the ERG noticing. I accept Remain failed to include a projection for what would happen if the government lied to businesses, it seems clear they made the assumption that government would tell the truth so the businesses could prepare

You can't have it both ways.

cogito

phillw wrote: »

Forecasting is hard. It's not a lie because they believed what they said, while leave told things they knew not to be true and had literally made up & have no basis in reality. I know which I'd want moving forward, I don't understand why you'd choose the people who lie.

Things haven't been that great since brexit... https://fullfact.org/economy/pound-fallen-since-brexit/

The UK’s economic growth is not quite the slowest in Europe. The UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) has grown by 1.5%, comparing July-September 2017 to the same period the year before. That’s slower than every EU country except Denmark and Greece (although there’s no data yet for Ireland and Luxembourg), and the average rate among EU members is 2.6%.

Can you now post figures that are not 18 months old?

cogito

mayonnaise wrote: »

Sigh.
Ok, once more:

Immediate deep recession :
'Leaving the European Union'. When was it exactly that we left the EU according to you?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564

Emergency Budget : You must have missed the Autumn Statement from your retirement abode in Greece?

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/autumn-statement-2016-uk-faces-121-billion-borrowing-bill-as-brexit-bites-a3402951.html

Every family losing £40,000? Nobody ever said such thing.

Shame on you for continuing to peddle fake news, and to top it off, telling other posters they've lost it.

Sigh. Here you are then.

http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/the-many-lies-of-the-remain-campaign/

Shame on you for peddling fake news.

mayonnaise

cogito wrote: »

Sigh. Here you are then.

http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/the-many-lies-of-the-remain-campaign/

Shame on you for peddling fake news.

The Daily Globe. :rotfl:

cogito

mayonnaise wrote: »

The Daily Globe. :rotfl:

Go on then. Explain which ones are incorrect.

phillw

cogito wrote: »

Go on then. Explain which ones are incorrect.

1. The idea of an EU army was a dangerous fantasy

That is true.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/98495/fact-check-does-the-eu-want-a-european-super-army

But is their proposal an EU army?
Not really. Despite Macron and Merkel’s use of the term “real EU army”, it appears that the creation of a genuine joint military force across EU nations is highly unlikely.

The Independent reports that “a number of proposals have been put on the table for how EU nations could co-operate more closely on defence”, and notes that the European Commission has explicitly stated that closer defence co-operation “is not about creating an EU army”.

This is because, as the BBC points out, the deployment of troops into harm’s way “remains the ultimate sovereign decision of a national government”, and not a supra-national organisation such as the EU. It notes that an example of this is the fact that there is no “Nato army” currently in service, “merely an alliance of national components trained and accustomed to operating together”.

This increased level of co-operation appears to be what Juncker and the EC are aiming for, despite EC spokesperson Margaritis Schinas giving mixed messages in the wake Merkel’s announcement of support for an EU army.

He initially stated: “We are delighted that both the president of the French republic and the German chancellor, with a few days interval, publicly backed this idea.”

When asked directly about the “true army” remarks, Schinas said: “This is the Commission that put forward lots of initiatives and proposals to start building gradually a more meaningful and assertive defence identity in these difficult geopolitical times,” he told reporters at a regular briefing. “I don’t think that this defence identity will start with an EU army.”


2. Voting to leave the EU would have an immediate detrimental effect on the UK’s economy

What happened is that the government changed and they started telling lies to businesses about the future relationship which has delayed the effect. Recently some businesses have started to act as the lies become apparent. Consumer spending has continued because of positive feeling of things like the heat wave and world cup, those aren't things you can rely on once the delayed effect hits.


3. An emergency budget would be necessary upon a Leave vote being delivered

It was necessary, but deemed politically damaging and so it was put off and dealt with in a different way.


4. Britain would be at the “back of the queue” for a US trade deal

That was certainly true at the time as trade deals take a long time to negotiate, it's not a punishment but an acknowledgement they didn't have the intention to fast track our negotiations. Things are slightly less clear now that Trump is in charge as he doesn't follow conventional methods. From his suggestion to Theresa May to sue the EU, it's not clear whether we'd be able to do a trade deal with him or whether he would be even worse to deal with than the ERG or DUP & he'd just end up suing us.


5. The UK would break up following a vote to leave
Remainers also warned throughout the referendum campaign that Brexit threatened the constitutional make up of the UK and that Scotland could secede from the United Kingdom.

This one admits it's a lie within the article, nobody said the UK would break up only that it threatened a break up.
Some people are calling for a break up, so it seems true.

6. Article 50 would be triggered immediately
In February 2016, whilst addressing the House of Commons, David Cameron implied that Article 50 could be expected to be triggered immediately after a Leave vote was delivered. This was intended to focus Leavers’ minds as to the finality of the upcoming decision.

“If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”

— David Cameron addressing parliament in February 2016.

Again, admits it's a lie straight away. We can't know if David Cameron would have triggered article 50, but he only said that people would expect it. As he left government the next day we don't know whether he would have triggered it immediately or not. We also have no way of knowing whether Theresa Mays delayed triggering it was a deliberate attempt to prove him wrong. The delay of triggering article 50 doesn't seem to have helped any, it was just a political tactic and nothing practical was done during the delay.


7. This was a once in a generation decision, and there would be no going back

That appears to still be true. A lot of people have called for another vote purely because of the number of lies the leave side told & the result is therefore invalid.


8. A hard border would be required in Ireland if there was a no-deal Brexit

The ERG certainly think this is true, or they wouldn't be worried about the backstop.


9. The UK, through Cameron’s negotiation, had “secured a special status in a reformed EU.”
In early 2016, Cameron negotiated with the EU for a “new deal for Britain”, which he could then sell to the public to persuade them to vote Remain. Information about this new deal was publicised in a controversial leaflet that went to every household in the country.

All of those statements are true, but unrelated. We had secured a special status, the leaflet didn't claim that this was secured in the visit that they mention. Your article manufactures a link between them and then uses that as proof, your article is a lie.


10. Migrant camps would appear throughout South East England
In 2003, the Le Touquet Agreement was signed between Britain, France and Belgium. This was an agreement saying that border controls would take place before boarding a train or ferry, as opposed to on arrival after disembarkation.

Seems true.

Why do the French want to scrap the treaty?
Mr Macron, along with many others, says France can no longer be Britain's "coast guard" to do its dirty work . The deal means that illegal immigrants found in France are barred from Britain before they reach it.

The onus for dealing with the thousands of asylum seekers who are turned away or blocked from illegal entry is thus on France. Any who make illegally cross the Channel via the tunnel or ferries are returned to France.


11. Families would be £4,300 worse off if Britain left the EU

They made the assumption that a hit to GDP would have a similar affect on wages, we'll find out if that was a safe assumption.

Secondly, although the wording sounded like people would be worse off, in reality the forecast stated that people would be better off – it would just be by 6% less compared to if a Remain vote was returned.

Seems like a case of purposefully misunderstanding, the bbc were able to explain it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

Another thing to stress is that the Treasury is not saying that the economy would be this much per household worse off than they are now in 2030. It is saying that the economy would be 6% smaller in 2030 if the UK left the EU than it would be if it stayed in

This figure was also seen as overly pessimistic (studies for The Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics put the figure at 1.3 – 2.6%.

Cherry picking the best worst outcome to disprove another is a lie.

A report by Open Britain even claimed the UK could be better off by 1.3%, mainly by cutting EU red tape. This was all ignored in the Treasury’s campaigning to the public.

Propaganda is rightfully ignored. Red tape is a dog whistle. What a lot of people are unaware of is that the red tape referred to is mostly their rights.

mayonnaise

cogito wrote: »

Go on then. Explain which ones are incorrect.

I'll do two, just for the sake of it.

On the immediate economic impact of a vote to Leave. You guys make a big song and dance around the phrase 'a vote to leave' trying to imply that it meant an immediate recession starting 24/6/2016.
The Treasury analysis is clear however : HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu
As I said, we haven't left the EU.


PESCO is an initiative for closer cooperation in security and defence on a European Level. It's not a European Army.
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-Homepage/34226/permanent-structured-cooperation-pesco-factsheet_en

Now if you excuse me, I have better things to do than to refute ramblings from a Europhobe extremist website.