Brexit discussion

Originally Posted by jonbxx

You guys do understand that Germany has 8.4% of the voting weight in the European Council right? This is the same as France, Italy and the UK and just above Spain and Poland. If anything, Germany is under represented due to its population size.

Check out the Treaty of Nice to see how much influence Germany has - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting...2014.2F2017.29

Germany has proven rather reluctant to exert too much influence.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Mick

You cannot be seriously expecting me to believe something written from people paid from the very people we are trying to leave, surely?

It does beg the question why there haven't been full studies or peer reviewed papers having a pro-Brexit standpoint. I would have thought the combined cash of Tim Martin (worth around £200m) Lord Bamford (£3.1b!) and Jacob Rees-Mogg (£45m) would have paid nicely for a robust pro-Brexit paper somewhere

(I stand to be corrected if there's anything more substantial than a press release out there)

In the meantime, I will repost this link - https://benefitcostanalysis.org/site...1%20Brexit.pdf which shows the breadth of different sources all telling a similar story. Economics is in inexact science and I don't think anyone would disagree but if almost all reports lean in the same direction, it does seem like there's a trend towards a prediction of a negative impact.

Here's a summary on slide 10;

Most studies conclude that best scenarii would lead the UK economy to suffer very lightly (around 1% GDP) or even experience net gains (see Booth et al. 2015) while the worst-case scenario envisage ‘only’ a 8% loss of GDP (see HM Treasury 2016).

After that, we're just arguing about how big really.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

It does beg the question why there haven't been full studies or peer reviewed papers having a pro-Brexit standpoint. I would have thought the combined cash of Tim Martin (worth around £200m) Lord Bamford (£3.1b!) and Jacob Rees-Mogg (£45m) would have paid nicely for a robust pro-Brexit paper somewhere

(I stand to be corrected if there's anything more substantial than a press release out there)

In the meantime, I will repost this link - https://benefitcostanalysis.org/site...1%20Brexit.pdf which shows the breadth of different sources all telling a similar story. Economics is in inexact science and I don't think anyone would disagree but if almost all reports lean in the same direction, it does seem like there's a trend towards a prediction of a negative impact.

Here's a summary on slide 10;



After that, we're just arguing about how big really.

The problem is that most studies are based on a proven model, i.e. what has happened elsewhere or previously in the same or similar situation.

There is no model to base a prediction on. It's never happened before anywhere.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by pip08456

The problem is that most studies are based on a proven model, i.e. what has happened elsewhere or previously in the same or similar situation.

There is no model to base a prediction on. It's never happened before anywhere.

You are absolutely right, estimates have to be made on the relative costs and I think that is shown by the fairly wide spread of predictions. Ther are some that are known, for example MFN rates under the WTO for imports in to the EU that will have a big influence on our exports. Or the relative costs of importing goods from non-EU states under WTO rules that may need to be extended to EU imports.

You could argue however that the lack of precedent does illustrate what a leap in to the unknown this exercise really is.

Textbooks and Ph.D. theses will be written about these years in the future. We are living through history here.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Mick

Given they got most of their other forecasts wrong, I would say is a given, oh and that big fat sum they were given by the EU, is another?

You cannot be seriously expecting me to believe something written from people paid from the very people we are trying to leave, surely?

The OECD has received more money from the UK than from the EC. The UK is a primary tier funder.

You have, on this very thread, said that you will 'never' regret your vote to leave the EU so it seems reasonable to assume that you will reject any evidence with the potential to cause regret whether it's the OECD, one of the dozens of studies on this, or the UK's own impact studies if the government ever release them.

Probably easier and faster to say 'It's BS because I don't agree with it.'.

Originally Posted by Mick

I am pretty sure you mean David Cameron, he definitely mentioned it and I am deliberately including a link to the mirror here, as you know, hardly Tory fans...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ld-war-7928607

I suspect you Googled Brexit and World War 3.

Introduced by Labour ex-Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the British Museum in London, he said: "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

He didn't say anything about World War 3. The first mention of it was from Boris Johnson. Peace and stability on our continent isn't assured - Russia are making a PITA of themselves in the east.

FWIW it was a stupid, fear-mongering comment from Cameron that was a waste of oxygen, but it's inaccurate to suggest anyone other than Johnson first announced that he meant leaving the EU would trigger World War 3.

---------- Post added at 11:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

If we remain now it'll be with our tail firmly between our legs and our government in cahoots with those who run the EU will ensure the rules are changed and that we can never leave. Juncker has spelt it out quite clearly and after decades of experience at the hands of these people and certain of our own leaders, it's clearly not just one man's hot air. The UK powerful within the EU? Really? We're so powerful that they wouldn't budge an inch prior to the Brexit vote or since.

Anyway in other EU news:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...it-paper-shows

So much for them bullying us and wanting to make it as hard as possible for us to leave, which you seemed enthusiastic to agree with, oh, yesterday.

According to people who actually know about EU law the concessions David Cameron won were actually about as far as the EU could go. But, hey, various extremely Euro-sceptic politicians and media said otherwise. Experts, pfft.

The paranoia is interesting though, fearing that the UK's government would cede powers to the EU. If that happened that would be what's known as Parliamentary democracy in action. It would also likely be direct democracy in action as, as has been mentioned many times and steadfastly ignored, it would trigger a referendum.

People speak disdainfully of safe spaces and snowflakes. Safe spaces seem to come in all sorts of forms, one of which being ignoring everything you don't agree with, and snowflakery in a form of being unable to handle the concept that you may be wrong about things.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

You guys do understand that Germany has 8.4% of the voting weight in the European Council right? This is the same as France, Italy and the UK and just above Spain and Poland. If anything, Germany is under represented due to its population size.

Check out the Treaty of Nice to see how much influence Germany has - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting...2014.2F2017.29

Yeah their 8% seems to buy them a great deal more influence than any other member state. Just ask the Greeks. Care to explain that? They have to economic might to influence all other members and that's exactly what they do.

Originally Posted by Osem

Yeah their 8% seems to buy them a great deal more influence than any other member state. Just ask the Greeks. Care to explain that? They have to economic might to influence all other members and that's exactly what they do.

Because Greece were asking for a bailout and Germany have the ability to stop it along with France and other Eurozone nations.

In the wider EU Germany do not have any magical powers to impose their will on everyone. France and the UK can also throw their weight around too. What I would say about Germany is they're more active in the EU than we are. How many European policies have been imposed by Germany?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Because Greece were asking for a bailout and Germany have the ability to stop it along with France and other Eurozone nations.

In the wider EU Germany do not have any magical powers to impose their will on everyone. France and the UK can also throw their weight around too. What I would say about Germany is they're more active in the EU than we are. How many European policies have been imposed by Germany?

Greece is but one example and we can all see what price the German's have made the Greeks pay can't we. The migration crisis was/is another. It was a unilateral decision taken by Merkel without reference to any other nation and the costs/effects have been felt across Europe.

Are you seriously suggesting that Merkel isn't calling virtually all the shots and using her considerable influence combined with Germany's economic muscle to determine events? Germany is at the centre of everything the EU does in one way or another and I can't honestly believe you think that's not the case.

Originally Posted by Osem

Are you seriously suggesting that Merkel isn't calling virtually all the shots and using her considerable influence combined with Germany's economic muscle to determine events? Germany is at the centre of everything the EU does in one way or another and I can't honestly believe you think that's not the case.

I think Germany are very influential in part because of their size and in part because they're willing to get get involved, a lot of EU nations have full dedicated departments relating to Europe, but I don't see them as 'calling virtually all the shots'. As I said it's easier to member states to stop things than enforce things. Germany, France and the UK are (or in our case can be) the biggest influences on the process and I think it's always been a mistake for us not to be more aggressive in using that influence.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think Germany are very influential in part because of their size and in part because they're willing to get get involved, a lot of EU nations have full dedicated departments relating to Europe, but I don't see them as 'calling virtually all the shots'. As I said it's easier to member states to stop things than enforce things. Germany, France and the UK are (or in our case can be) the biggest influences on the process and I think it's always been a mistake for us not to be more aggressive in using that influence.

I'm not arguing about the reasons why, merely the fact that Germany dominates the EU. Do you seriously think that any significant change in EU policy would get through without Germany's agreement? Look at how Merkel handled the Ukraine, Turkey etc. It was her effectively running EU policy and she'll have whatever bilateral (or other) talks/negotiations are required in order to get her way.

Thatcher was the last UK politician who took it to Europe and I'd agree that we ought to have done a lot more of that but we didn't and we can't now. The proof of the UK's 'influence' was Cameron's utter humiliation at the hands of Merkel prior to the referendum that's undeniable.

Originally Posted by Osem

I'm not arguing about the reasons why, merely the fact that Germany dominates the EU. Do you seriously think that any significant change in EU policy would get through without Germany's agreement?

No, but then any significant change in EU policy wouldn't get through without our agreement either.

Thatcher was the last UK politician who took it to Europe and I'd agree that we ought to have done a lot more of that but we didn't and we can't now. The proof of the UK's 'influence' was Cameron's utter humiliation at the hands of Merkel prior to the referendum that's undeniable.

I think they made a mistake not giving Cameron more but it would have been more realistic had we spent years cultivating better relationships, promoting various policies, making a concessions in one thing in return for something else and so. Diplomacy. Instead we tended to parachute in, make a bunch of demands, get nowhere then sulk away for a few years before parachuting in again, making demands, and sulking away.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

No, but then any significant change in EU policy wouldn't get through without our agreement either.


I think they made a mistake not giving Cameron more but it would have been more realistic had we spent years cultivating better relationships, promoting various policies, making a concessions in one thing in return for something else and so. Diplomacy. Instead we tended to parachute in, make a bunch of demands, get nowhere then sulk away for a few years before parachuting in again, making demands, and sulking away.

There are certain things we can veto and others we can't and the other members can all too often get their way when the UK happens to differ. That's fine for them but not for us when we don't want to be part of the Euro for example.

The history of our membership is irrelevant now - we are where we are. Yes the EEC could have been a wonderful thing but somehow it morphed into the EU and evidently the UK didn't/couldn't prevent that. The EU will not budge on its core ambitions and we can't veto or argue any of that reality away. That's why we must get out and stay out to better serve the UK's own interests.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The OECD has received more money from the UK than from the EC. The UK is a primary tier funder.

You have, on this very thread, said that you will 'never' regret your vote to leave the EU so it seems reasonable to assume that you will reject any evidence with the potential to cause regret whether it's the OECD, one of the dozens of studies on this, or the UK's own impact studies if the government ever release them.

Probably easier and faster to say 'It's BS because I don't agree with it.'.

I don't know how you can instill such forecasts and refer to them as evidence, we have not left the EU yet, so there is no evidence of what might or might not come to be, these forecasts, which is what they just are, which have the potential to be wrong, like they have so in the past, they are essentially just defeatists with their wild, fear mongering theories.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Mick

I don't know how you can instill such forecasts and refer to them as evidence, we have not left the EU yet, so there is no evidence of what might or might not come to be, these forecasts, which is what they just are, which have the potential to be wrong, like they have so in the past, they are essentially just defeatists with their wild, fear mongering theories.

Yeah, what happened to all those pre-referendum forecasts from all those expert economists etc. This is all just speculation and it's very easy to come up with an anti-Brexit explanation for just about anything. Large swathes of the media have been doing that since day one. Everything bad is down to Brexit, anything good is in spite of Brexit and won't last. It's pathetic.

[pip08456]

The OECD has a good track record on their Brexit forecasts.

OECD in Brexit warning U-turn as it revises growth forecast for UK

The OECD, the IMF, the Treasury, Osborne. How the experts got it wrong on the aftermath of a Leave vote.