Still can't believe Call Me Dave gambled the entire country on a Tory rift based on 50/50 polling WITHOUT guarantees of at least 60/40 and 3/4s nation lock.

 

And if he had, what then? There'd have been an even higher proportion of the electorate pissed off, and primed to vote UKIP next time...

And if he had, what then? There'd have been an even higher proportion of the electorate pissed off, and primed to vote UKIP next time...

 

With the advantage that the economy would have continued slowly recovering and no risk of a cliff-edge disaster may not actually mean an even higher percentage of pissed off people. At worst, the same people may just remain pissed off and they could still quite happily go on not voting for UKIP as much as they did before.

With the advantage that the economy would have continued slowly recovering and no risk of a cliff-edge disaster may not actually mean an even higher percentage of pissed off people. At worst, the same people may just remain pissed off and they could still quite happily go on not voting for UKIP as much as they did before.

 

Like they 'didn't vote for them' in the 2014 Euros' you mean? :rolleyes:

Like they 'didn't vote for them' in the 2014 Euros' you mean? :rolleyes:

 

Most people dont bother voting for those, just those very committed...

Most people dont bother voting for those, just those very committed...

 

Well 17.4m seemed pretty committed two years later. :mellow:

Well 17.4m seemed pretty committed two years later. :mellow:

 

That was cross-party and was based on cross-party co-operation in telling lies. They weren't UKIP voters necessarily.

 

and 43 million weren't pretty committed.

Most people dont bother voting for those, just those very committed...

And the vast majority of those who did bother to vote didn't vote UKIP.

And Leavers aren't entitled to the same concerns?

:Leavers voted to sacrifice those rights. Why should I have any sympathy for them unless they say they have now changed their mind?

time for a point of view from the EU..

 

 

 

Guy Verhofstadt

‏

Verified account

 

@guyverhofstadt

2h2 hours ago

More

"Farage's confusion is contagious: Gove doesnt seem to remember that action on plastic bags stems from EU regulation.PM May doesnt seem to know the ban on credit card surcharges is based on EU directive.The recently announced change to British passports was possible inside the EU"

 

I'm sure we can look forward to a Carillion-upscaled deal from the Tories.....

EU to lose £500bn and UK to gain £640bn in no-deal Brexit, economist claims

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/0...onomist-claims/

EU to lose £500bn and UK to gain £640bn in no-deal Brexit, economist claims

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/0...onomist-claims/

Unfortunately it's hidden behind the Telegraph paywall. Could you summarise?

Interested to see the model and assumptions used to arrive at such a figure. The last time an economist came out with a pro-Brexit view it spectacularly imploded under peer review. Outlandish assumptions, no explanation of the model used (or indeed any information at all on the model). It looked like it set out to justify an ideology that was not supported by evidence

 

Something in the back of my mind says that this is the same guy. If he couldn’t prove a much smaller number I don’t trust the academic rigour of this outlandish claim.

EU to lose £500bn and UK to gain £640bn in no-deal Brexit, economist claims

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/0...onomist-claims/

 

This is a rehash of one I posted on Sunday.

 

"But back to Brexit.

 

Sunday Express rehashing an old report from Sir Patrick Minford's propaganda rubbish about the EU losing 500 billion and the UK gaining 650 billion.

 

This report was rubbished in April, but it doesn't stop the extreme press barons desperate to avoid EU tax haven regulations from regurgitating the same old crap.

 

This piece may explain why it's bullshit:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...1271.html"

 

You're welcome.

 

Look at Minford's record. He was against the EU Social Chapter which enhanced workers' rights. He was an enthusiastic sup[porter of the Poll Tax and has always been rabidly anti-EU. Why should we believe his "research" above that of countless others who reach very different conclusions?

Unfortunately it's hidden behind the Telegraph paywall. Could you summarise?

 

A "no deal" outcome from the Brexit negotiations would lead to a £500 billion loss for the European Union, according to a new analysis.

 

A study by Patrick Minford, a professor of economics at Cardiff University, states that while a failure to reach a deal would lead to "short term nuisance" for both sides, Brussels would face a "substantial economic loss", compared to a net gain for the UK.

 

Prof Minford, who chairs the Eurosceptic Economists for Free Trade group, concludes: "It could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown".

 

The analysis comes after David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, complained in a letter to the Prime Minister that Brussels was damaging British interests by talking up the threat to companies if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal.

 

Prof Minford said: "For the UK a breakdown would be a short term nuisance but a substantial economic gain; for the EU it is both a short term nuisance and a substantial economic loss."

 

According to the analysis, the largest cost to the EU would be from paying the UK some £433 billion in tariff revenue. It would also lose around £28 billion which the UK would otherwise pay into the budget period to 2020, and a reported £10 billion contribution to longer term liabilities, as part of a financial settlement, Prof Minford concluded.

 

"Because its customs union with the UK would stop immediately, it would lose two years’ worth of the terms of trade gain its producers make on its balance of trade surplus with the UK- estimated at around £18 billion a year: so two years’ worth of that would be another £36 billion one-off loss," he added.

 

By contrast, a breakdown in talks would lead to a "one-off gain" of £38 billion on savings in relation to the EU budget, in addition a £180 billion windfall as a result of bringing forward the "long-term gain" of "free trade, own-regulation and own-border-control" in the absence of the otherwise expected two-year implementation period for a deal.

 

The UK would also gain the total of £433 billion tariff revenue which Prof Minford calculated would be paid by the EU to the Treasury, he said.

 

He concluded: "So plus £641 billion for the UK versus minus £507 billion for the EU: it could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown. For the UK a breakdown would be a short term nuisance but a substantial economic gain; for the EU it is both a short term nuisance and a substantial economic loss."

Look at Minford's record. He was against the EU Social Chapter which enhanced workers' rights. He was an enthusiastic sup[porter of the Poll Tax and has always been rabidly anti-EU. Why should we believe his "research" above that of countless others who reach very different conclusions?

 

I didn't *expect* this group's europhiles to believe it, partly because no-one is immune from confirmation bias. :mellow:

I didn't *expect* this group's europhiles to believe it, partly because no-one is immune from confirmation bias. :mellow:

You miss the point (again). This is one economist whose anti-EU vies are well-known. It is also a rehash of a story that was debunked nine months ago.

You miss the point (again). This is one economist whose anti-EU vies are well-known. It is also a rehash of a story that was debunked nine months ago.

 

So I guess we're back to 'wait and see' then.

 

Where I differ from most on this forum, is that I believe that regaining our economic freedom of action is well worth the slight risk that Brexit may entail.

Edited January 18, 20187 yr by vidcapper

So I guess we're back to 'wait and see' then.

 

Where I differ from most on this forum, is that I believe that regaining our economic freedom of action is well worth the slight risk that Brexit may entail.

You found one study supporting your viewpoint, and someone pointed out that it had been debunked months ago.

 

If you can find debunkings of every report stating that Brexit will negatively affect the economy, then yes, I suppose it's back to 'wait and see'.

 

Setting aside the use of 'slight risk' for a second - how do you propose we exercise our economic freedom when writing trade deals with larger economies like the US and China? How do you think we should go about protecting our interests?

It's not just larger economies. Negotiations with smaller economies will not necessarily be simple either. Many of them are members of trading blocs which means we will have to negotiate with the bloc, not individual members. For example, we would enter negotiations with a country like Singapore in a reasonably strong position. That position will be massively weakened by the fact that countries such as Malaysia and Singapore will also be involved as part of ASEAN. That's even before you allow for the fact that ASEAN will probably want to conclude discussions with the EU before bothering about the UK.