The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
For the record, I think the Treasury is broadly right that a (unprepared) no deal Brexit would have serious negative consequences for the UK. Don't forget that it is not just our trade with the EU that would suddenly be on WTO terms, but also our trade with all of the countries the EU has agreements with. We would also need to get signed treaties that replicate existing recognition of standards, such as the EU has with the US.
Leave it to John Redwood.
He'll sort us out I mean if you lot want sovereignty (no EU, WTO, etc) as far as I can see he is the only one telling you that he will deliver it.
He's the only one who can secure a trade deal with the Vulcans.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
For the record, I think the Treasury is broadly right that a (unprepared) no deal Brexit would have serious negative consequences for the UK. Don't forget that it is not just our trade with the EU that would suddenly be on WTO terms, but also our trade with all of the countries the EU has agreements with. We would also need to get signed treaties that replicate existing recognition of standards, such as the EU has with the US.
Leave it to John Redwood.
He'll sort us out I mean if you lot want sovereignty (no EU, WTO, etc) as far as I can see he is the only one telling you that he will deliver it.
He's the only one who can secure a trade deal with the Vulcans.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
For the record, I think the Treasury is broadly right that a (unprepared) no deal Brexit would have serious negative consequences for the UK. Don't forget that it is not just our trade with the EU that would suddenly be on WTO terms, but also our trade with all of the countries the EU has agreements with. We would also need to get signed treaties that replicate existing recognition of standards, such as the EU has with the US.
Leave it to John Redwood.
He'll sort us out I mean if you lot want sovereignty (no EU, WTO, etc) as far as I can see he is the only one telling you that he will deliver it.
He's the only one who can secure a trade deal with the Vulcans.
Redwood is a Romulan, not a Vulcan.
For starters he's opposed to sovereign nations being members of a Federation....
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
I take your point, government impact assessments can be wildly optomistic.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
For the record, I think the Treasury is broadly right that a (unprepared) no deal Brexit would have serious negative consequences for the UK. Don't forget that it is not just our trade with the EU that would suddenly be on WTO terms, but also our trade with all of the countries the EU has agreements with. We would also need to get signed treaties that replicate existing recognition of standards, such as the EU has with the US.
Leave it to John Redwood.
He'll sort us out I mean if you lot want sovereignty (no EU, WTO, etc) as far as I can see he is the only one telling you that he will deliver it.
He's the only one who can secure a trade deal with the Vulcans.
Redwood is a Romulan, not a Vulcan.
For starters he's opposed to sovereign nations being members of a Federation....
Given the Federation would allow his planet to be destroyed without saving the population I am not sure that is an analogy you woukd want to continue.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
For the record, I think the Treasury is broadly right that a (unprepared) no deal Brexit would have serious negative consequences for the UK. Don't forget that it is not just our trade with the EU that would suddenly be on WTO terms, but also our trade with all of the countries the EU has agreements with. We would also need to get signed treaties that replicate existing recognition of standards, such as the EU has with the US.
Leave it to John Redwood.
He'll sort us out I mean if you lot want sovereignty (no EU, WTO, etc) as far as I can see he is the only one telling you that he will deliver it.
Seeing John Redwood strongly advised his investment clients to pull out of the UK because with Brexit it's fucked, I am not quite sure how to treat that clarity. Maybe a form of creative destruction.
The idea that they can predict the results of an economy in 15 years time, particularly bearing in mind that people's behaviour will change and adapt to the new situation, is just ridiculous.
I take your point, government impact assessments can be wildly optomistic.
When they want them to be...
Like with most organisations, they are prone to optimism bias. The Treasury Green Book even recommends applying a weighting to account for it.
So, it turns out that the people that are going to benefit from Brexit are the out of touch, liberal, London metropolitan elite.
Whoever would have thought it?
The country is going to be even more dependent on London that has been up to now.
Depends if there is a FTA or not, whatever the forecast says a FTA would benefit manufacturing more than services, especially financial services and that would impact more on London which really wants the single market. If it is WTO terms London would be better placed simply to weather the storm which would hit with no FTA at all
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
So, it turns out that the people that are going to benefit from Brexit are the out of touch, liberal, London metropolitan elite.
Whoever would have thought it?
The country is going to be even more dependent on London that has been up to now.
Depends if there is a FTA or not, whatever the forecast says a FTA would benefit manufacturing more than services, especially financial services and that would impact more on London which really wants the single market. If it is WTO terms London would be better placed simply to weather the storm which would hit with no FTA at all
With our economy dependent upon manufacturing, let's hope there is an FTA, then.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But there won’t be one change will there, especially not over 15 years? It’s just nonsense. We have no idea of changes to govt policy over that time in reaction, outside events, technology changes etc etc.
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
I found the decision by the CPS not to prosecute him for more offences and the decision of the Home Office not to seek to review the decision themselves remarkable. Khan's positioning on this is likely to cut him a lot of slack on Law and Order when he stands for re-election.
Given the reporters description of him on WATO 'grey haired, stooped, looking much older than his sixty years' I wondered if terminal illness was a factor in the Parole Board's decision.
I have absolutely no problem with him dying in prison, chemically castrated or not.
There’s a very simple question that needs asking.
If John Worboys isn’t worthy of a life sentence, then who is?
He could only be sentenced for the crimes of which he was convicted. If he had been convicted of a fraction of the number of rapes he is thought to have committed he would have got life. He was only convicted of one rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted assault and a number of charges related to drugging victims. That is not enough to justify a life sentence.
Regarding the CPS not prosecuting him for more offences, I presume they went for those cases where the evidence was strongest. Even then they only managed to secure a single rape conviction. Adding more offences where the evidence was weak may have diluted the case which could have resulted in him being convicted of fewer offences. The basic problem is that, due to him drugging his victims and the fact that most delayed before going to the authorities, there was no solid evidence of rape in most of the cases.
As for the Ministry of Justice (NOT the Home Office) failing to seek judicial review, I rather suspect that any attempt would have been thrown out on the grounds that the Ministry of Justice does not have standing to bring such a case. There is also an argument that, given the Parole Board's relationship with the MoJ, it could be regarded as the MoJ bringing a case against itself.
I always thought that the attempt to get judicial review by the victims was more likely to succeed.
So, it turns out that the people that are going to benefit from Brexit are the out of touch, liberal, London metropolitan elite.
Whoever would have thought it?
The country is going to be even more dependent on London that has been up to now.
Depends if there is a FTA or not, whatever the forecast says a FTA would benefit manufacturing more than services, especially financial services and that would impact more on London which really wants the single market. If it is WTO terms London would be better placed simply to weather the storm which would hit with no FTA at all
With our economy dependent upon manufacturing, let's hope there is an FTA, then.
Even though I voted Remain and work in the Financial Services Industry I'd be really happy with a Hard WTO/Brexit.
It really would be the event that would force the country to live within its means.
We'd get the cuts to public spending that was political unacceptable for George Osborne to deliver.
So we'd cut spending on things like Tax Credits.
Bring it on, I'm nearly tumescent at the prospect.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Oh, so another area where we were stitched up by the French and Germans.
BiB - Given the lack of precedent for something like Brexit, you'd think the analysts would be a bit more circumspect when it comes to the presentation of their forecasts.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But there won’t be one change will there, especially not over 15 years? It’s just nonsense. We have no idea of changes to govt policy over that time in reaction, outside events, technology changes etc etc.
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
A smoker will die on average 10 years younger than a non smoker. A non smoker dropping dead of a heart attack age 50 doesn't invalidate that smoking is bad for you.
Changes will happen whether we are in or out of the EU but if you put barriers in the way of trade then all else being the same, don't be surprised if growth is lower.
On Brexit forecasting, the known unknowns are almost all downside risks, where the downsides are concrete and immediate. So we know that if you have to pay new duties, have to invest in new systems, are unable to recruit international staff that these things all have costs. We may not know the extent of these costs but they do exist and we can estimate them.
The upside potential is all of the "something may turn up" kind. In the long term that's as good as it gets, but in the medium term you can't model unknown unknowns. People may switch investment from the EU to the UK, but there is (a) no current plausible reason for them to do so and (b) there is no evidence of this happening. There are however very concrete reasons to switch investment from the UK to the EU and plenty of evidence that this is happening right now.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
On Brexit forecasting, the known unknowns are almost all downside risks, where the downsides are concrete and immediate. So we know that if you have to pay new duties, have to invest in new systems, are unable to recruit international staff that these things all have costs. We may not know the extent of these costs but they do exist and we can estimate them.
The upside potential is all of the "something may turn up" kind. In the long term that's as good as it gets, but in the medium term you can't model unknown unknowns. People may switch investment from the EU to the UK, but there is (a) no current plausible reason for them to do so and (b) there is no evidence of this happening. There are however very concrete reasons to switch investment from the UK to the EU and plenty of evidence that this is happening right now.
But we have blue passports. Even if not the same blue.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
Why didn't Labour put in transitional controls once it became clear that most of the other EU countries were going to do so? Seems the obvious thing to do.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
Why didn't Labour put in transitional controls once it became clear that most of the other EU countries were going to do so? Seems the obvious thing to do.
In strictly economic terms, we did the right thing.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
But their headline forecast that they presented to was totally wrong. Saying that you had an alternative scenario on page 187 which showed something else doesn't really make that any better, since it was the headline figure that was actioned upon.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
Why didn't Labour put in transitional controls once it became clear that most of the other EU countries were going to do so? Seems the obvious thing to do.
If the aim was to reduce immigration then definitely transition controls would have helped. If the aim was to benefit the economy from the migrants... then not so much.
So, it turns out that the people that are going to benefit from Brexit are the out of touch, liberal, London metropolitan elite.
Whoever would have thought it?
The country is going to be even more dependent on London that has been up to now.
Depends if there is a FTA or not, whatever the forecast says a FTA would benefit manufacturing more than services, especially financial services and that would impact more on London which really wants the single market. If it is WTO terms London would be better placed simply to weather the storm which would hit with no FTA at all
With our economy dependent upon manufacturing, let's hope there is an FTA, then.
Even though I voted Remain and work in the Financial Services Industry I'd be really happy with a Hard WTO/Brexit.
It really would be the event that would force the country to live within its means.
We'd get the cuts to public spending that was political unacceptable for George Osborne to deliver.
So we'd cut spending on things like Tax Credits.
Bring it on, I'm nearly tumescent at the prospect.
No you would get Corbyn and a top tax rate of 90%, maybe after that you might get hard edged Thatcherism if Labour does not move to the centre and back to the single market but not before
@HYUFD - You keep telling us the outcome will be an FTA that ends free movement. Are you confident about going out campaigning based on these figures?
I voted Remain if you remember. However I also respect democracy and the 52% of voters who voted Leave largely to restore sovereignty and end free movement and only a FTA that ends free movement does that
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
Why didn't Labour put in transitional controls once it became clear that most of the other EU countries were going to do so? Seems the obvious thing to do.
If the aim was to reduce immigration then definitely transition controls would have helped. If the aim was to benefit the economy from the migrants... then not so much.
Well, given the supposed importance of the EU to our economy, the economic assessment of the immigrants should have taken into the account the potential risk of an in/out EU referendum occurring in the future as a result of the increased immigration.
So, it turns out that the people that are going to benefit from Brexit are the out of touch, liberal, London metropolitan elite.
Whoever would have thought it?
The country is going to be even more dependent on London that has been up to now.
Depends if there is a FTA or not, whatever the forecast says a FTA would benefit manufacturing more than services, especially financial services and that would impact more on London which really wants the single market. If it is WTO terms London would be better placed simply to weather the storm which would hit with no FTA at all
With our economy dependent upon manufacturing, let's hope there is an FTA, then.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
But their headline forecast that they presented to was totally wrong. Saying that you had an alternative scenario on page 187 which showed something else doesn't really make that any better, since it was the headline figure that was actioned upon.
I am sure it was explained at the time that other countries not imposing controls would have an upward impact on the numbers. It’s not unreasonable to expect Ministers to read reports.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
Why didn't Labour put in transitional controls once it became clear that most of the other EU countries were going to do so? Seems the obvious thing to do.
If the aim was to reduce immigration then definitely transition controls would have helped. If the aim was to benefit the economy from the migrants... then not so much.
Well, given the supposed importance of the EU to our economy, the economic assessment of the immigrants should have taken into the account the potential risk of an in/out EU referendum occurring in the future as a result of the increased immigration.
That’s a political judgment best left to politicians I’d say.
Personally I think the Brexit vote had many many causes and can’t be reduced to a decision taken a decade before on immigration.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
Why didn't Labour put in transitional controls once it became clear that most of the other EU countries were going to do so? Seems the obvious thing to do.
In strictly economic terms, we did the right thing.
That is debatable.. in strictly economic terms. It depends on whether you measure GDP or GDP per head. On the first measure the immigration since the mid 90s has been beneficial. On the second measure it has not.
Personally I think the differences in terms if benefit or detriment are so slight as to be secondary to the basic idea of freedom of movement being a good thing. But just in your terms of economics your claim is certainly open to challenge.
A smoker will die on average 10 years younger than a non smoker. A non smoker dropping dead of a heart attack age 50 doesn't invalidate that smoking is bad for you.
Changes will happen whether we are in or out of the EU but if you put barriers in the way of trade then all else being the same, don't be surprised if growth is lower.
Your words "all else being the same" demolish your argument, because outside of controlled experiments all else never is the same. A smoker can stop smoking and make no other relevant lifestyle change, and in those circumstances you can make "other things being equal" predictions of his life expectancy. Those predictions don't look so good if it turns out he stopped smoking to free up extra cash to fund his fentanyl habit. The Uk's basis of leaving the EU, whatever it turns out to be, will consist of thousands of changes to the way things happen, each of which will have thousands of effects, all of which will feed back into what happens next. Your analogy just doesn't fit the facts in any useful way.
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
I still don’t think you’re understanding what a conditional forecast is and what it means.
Oil prices might collapse, there might be some new technology that boosts productivity... all these things could happen. But they would happen in both possible futures. Therefore if you are subtracting Brexit from Remain, they cancel out.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
Interesting read, although it does state that the rise wasn’t forecast.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Read just a bit further and it says that was based on all countries not applying transition controls. They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
So the model that took more things into account was more accurate?
It’s the one model. But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them. Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
But their headline forecast that they presented to was totally wrong. Saying that you had an alternative scenario on page 187 which showed something else doesn't really make that any better, since it was the headline figure that was actioned upon.
I am sure it was explained at the time that other countries not imposing controls would have an upward impact on the numbers. It’s not unreasonable to expect Ministers to read reports.
Unfortunately Desmond, among the many extraordinary qualities that politicians possess, reasonableness is not necessarily the first that springs to mind. (Sir Humphrey Appleby)
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But there won’t be one change will there, especially not over 15 years? It’s just nonsense. We have no idea of changes to govt policy over that time in reaction, outside events, technology changes etc etc.
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
A smoker will die on average 10 years younger than a non smoker. A non smoker dropping dead of a heart attack age 50 doesn't invalidate that smoking is bad for you.
Changes will happen whether we are in or out of the EU but if you put barriers in the way of trade then all else being the same, don't be surprised if growth is lower.
Bit all else wont be the same. You cannot possibly foresee what will and won’t be the same so it’s useless.
There don’t seem to have been any leaks from this afternoon’s Brexit subcommittee meeting. Hopefully the participants have all realised that the endless briefings and public disputes aren’t doing the party or the country any favours.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But there won’t be one change will there, especially not over 15 years? It’s just nonsense. We have no idea of changes to govt policy over that time in reaction, outside events, technology changes etc etc.
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
A smoker will die on average 10 years younger than a non smoker. A non smoker dropping dead of a heart attack age 50 doesn't invalidate that smoking is bad for you.
Changes will happen whether we are in or out of the EU but if you put barriers in the way of trade then all else being the same, don't be surprised if growth is lower.
Bit all else wont be the same. You cannot possibly foresee what will and won’t be the same so it’s useless.
There don’t seem to have been any leaks from this afternoon’s Brexit subcommittee meeting. Hopefully the participants have all realised that the endless briefings and public disputes aren’t doing the party or the country any favours.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
There don’t seem to have been any leaks from this afternoon’s Brexit subcommittee meeting. Hopefully the participants have all realised that the endless briefings and public disputes aren’t doing the party or the country any favours.
Rail safety incident at Leeds not too clever. Looking at the picture of was a passenger accessible coupling, not one between units, that came apart, just as passengers would have been going to the doors. Lucky nobody hurt.
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
Alternatively they may be correct but that’s not what we voted on and we don’t care if we grow a little less slowly vs. the counter factual.... Also worth noting that a lot of the future growth estimated is just from immigration and having more people here. Personally I’m in favour of completely open borders but GDP per capita and household spending power is what matters.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But there won’t be one change will there, especially not over 15 years? It’s just nonsense. We have no idea of changes to govt policy over that time in reaction, outside events, technology changes etc etc.
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
Bearing in mind the share value of Tesla being greater than General Motors, plus Tesla has a lot of deposits on cars not yet built or delivered, am I the only one who is suspicious that Tesla has elements of a Ponzi scheme about it?
Electric cars and private rockets may be the future, but I am not convinced by the business model.
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
It's too early to say.
Leavers don’t want to admit their policy has real economic costs. It’s not stupidity - just a grotesque lack of moral responsibility.
What was the impact assessment of the EU8 on immigration?
My understanding is that the analysis wasn’t actually that far off (and this is a tough thing to model given lack of precedent) - but that what was widely reported/focused on, were the estimates assuming Germany and other countries would not impose transition controls.
@HYUFD - You keep telling us the outcome will be an FTA that ends free movement. Are you confident about going out campaigning based on these figures?
As Robert Kennedy once said GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile. 'It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our devotion to country or family'.
It's macro and most people don't see how it benefits them directly as its benefits are not evenly spread. Iran has a higher GDP than Norway - but it's not as happy or as wealthy.
Maybe that's the problem - still fighting using the same arguments that failed in June 2016. Or to put it another way there is more to life than money. What use is earning double when prices have risen ten fold?
What assumptions on immigration and population change are made within these figures?
Note that if the UK's net population grew by 0.34% (220,000) less per annum post Brexit than it would were we to remain in the EU, in 15 years time it would be 5% lower than otherwise. 220,000 less net immigration after an end to migration from the EU is not an unreasonable assumption, given that for all their bluster the EU economy is highly dependent upon its exports to and huge balance of trade surplus with the UK and will negotiate to preserve that if it can.
So assuming that these are changes in gross GDP being quoted, and the study assumed lower UK population growth of this magnitude, then after 15 years the UK's GDP per head of population would be exactly the same in a free trade Brexit scenario as in a Remain scenario (if for a moment you suspend wider scepticism about the basis of these calculations).
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But there won’t be one change will there, especially not over 15 years? It’s just nonsense. We have no idea of changes to govt policy over that time in reaction, outside events, technology changes etc etc.
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
Bearing in mind the share value of Tesla being greater than General Motors, plus Tesla has a lot of deposits on cars not yet built or delivered, am I the only one who is suspicious that Tesla has elements of a Ponzi scheme about it?
Electric cars and private rockets may be the future, but I am not convinced by the business model.
I fully see what you’re saying- it was an example.
To cite others off the top of my head, if we crack wave power in Swansea Bay in the next five years we could be looking at something equally “disruptive”. Ditto if we actually decide to frack like mad, or introduce a flat rate tax, or we cure some common cancers, or Italy votes out of the Euro and so on.
Fifteen years ago we were still debating the merits of invading Iraq - a lots happened since to say the least.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But there won’t be one change will there, especially not over 15 years? It’s just nonsense. We have no idea of changes to govt policy over that time in reaction, outside events, technology changes etc etc.
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
Bearing in mind the share value of Tesla being greater than General Motors, plus Tesla has a lot of deposits on cars not yet built or delivered, am I the only one who is suspicious that Tesla has elements of a Ponzi scheme about it?
Electric cars and private rockets may be the future, but I am not convinced by the business model.
Tesla has a healthier order book than GM. Deposits of circa 3% don't seem excessive.
They have multiple other issues around manufacturing, technology, battery supply and no doubt finance too.
@HYUFD - You keep telling us the outcome will be an FTA that ends free movement. Are you confident about going out campaigning based on these figures?
As Robert Kennedy once said GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile. It's macro and most people don't see how it benefits them directly as its benefits are not evenly spread.
Maybe that's the problem - still fighting using the same arguments that failed in June 2016.
You'll very rarely see me make economic arguments about Brexit, but remember that numbers on a spreadsheet translate into real people's lives. What do you say to the person whose job is 'a price worth paying' to get out of the EU?
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
It's too early to say.
Leavers don’t want to admit their policy has real economic costs. It’s not stupidity - just a grotesque lack of moral responsibility.
So far, I think the economic consequences of the Leave vote have been benign. The balance of payments has improved due to rising exports and production, and a slowdown in consumption. Employment growth has remained strong, and productivity may now be picking up. I don't see how we could indefinitely act as the EU's consumer of last resort.
That does not mean that I know for certain that the economic consequences will continue to be benign for the next 15 years. That will depend on the economic policies of successive governments.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But there won’t be one change will there, especially not over 15 years? It’s just nonsense. We have no idea of changes to govt policy over that time in reaction, outside events, technology changes etc etc.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
Bearing in mind the share value of Tesla being greater than General Motors, plus Tesla has a lot of deposits on cars not yet built or delivered, am I the only one who is suspicious that Tesla has elements of a Ponzi scheme about it?
Electric cars and private rockets may be the future, but I am not convinced by the business model.
I fully see what you’re saying- it was an example.
To cite others off the top of my head, if we crack wave power in Swansea Bay in the next five years we could be looking at something equally “disruptive”. Ditto if we actually decide to frack like mad, or introduce a flat rate tax, or we cure some common cancers, or Italy votes out of the Euro and so on.
Fifteen years ago we were still debating the merits of invading Iraq - a lots happened since to say the least.
But if we crack wave power in Swansea - that is unrelated to Brexit and would happen either way nd so isn’t relevant to a forcast comparing Brexit + Remain.
It is I suppose possible that we will some new technology that fundamentally changes trade. If someone invented a teleporter, then I imagine the Treasury gravity models would be pretty useless.
What assumptions on immigration and population change are made within these figures?
Note that if the UK's net population grew by 0.34% (220,000) less per annum post Brexit than it would were we to remain in the EU, in 15 years time it would be 5% lower than otherwise. 220,000 less net immigration after an end to migration from the EU is not an unreasonable assumption, given that for all their bluster the EU economy is highly dependent upon its exports to and huge balance of trade surplus with the UK and will negotiate to preserve that if it can.
So assuming that these are changes in gross GDP being quoted, and the study assumed lower UK population growth of this magnitude, then after 15 years the UK's GDP per head of population would be exactly the same in a free trade Brexit scenario as in a Remain scenario (if for a moment you suspend wider scepticism about the basis of these calculations).
@HYUFD - You keep telling us the outcome will be an FTA that ends free movement. Are you confident about going out campaigning based on these figures?
As Robert Kennedy once said GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile. It's macro and most people don't see how it benefits them directly as its benefits are not evenly spread.
Maybe that's the problem - still fighting using the same arguments that failed in June 2016.
You'll very rarely see me make economic arguments about Brexit, but remember that numbers on a spreadsheet translate into real people's lives. What do you say to the person whose job is 'a price worth paying' to get out of the EU?
Young people earn far more now on average than they did 20 years ago in nominal terms and GDP is far higher. But house prices have risen up to ten fold. Are they wealthier or poorer - their earnings are higher but they share a rented flat whereas their peers could have bought a house with ease. They may be wealthier but A basic aspiration of life - a secure home they own - is beyond them.
Measuring wealth and happiness is way more complicated than GDP and headline earnings.
What assumptions on immigration and population change are made within these figures?
Note that if the UK's net population grew by 0.34% (220,000) less per annum post Brexit than it would were we to remain in the EU, in 15 years time it would be 5% lower than otherwise. 220,000 less net immigration after an end to migration from the EU is not an unreasonable assumption, given that for all their bluster the EU economy is highly dependent upon its exports to and huge balance of trade surplus with the UK and will negotiate to preserve that if it can.
So assuming that these are changes in gross GDP being quoted, and the study assumed lower UK population growth of this magnitude, then after 15 years the UK's GDP per head of population would be exactly the same in a free trade Brexit scenario as in a Remain scenario (if for a moment you suspend wider scepticism about the basis of these calculations).
Seems curious to me that South West is comparable to London.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
That is patently untrue. The EU has erected a giant trade barrier between it and the rest of the world.
What assumptions on immigration and population change are made within these figures?
Note that if the UK's net population grew by 0.34% (220,000) less per annum post Brexit than it would were we to remain in the EU, in 15 years time it would be 5% lower than otherwise. 220,000 less net immigration after an end to migration from the EU is not an unreasonable assumption, given that for all their bluster the EU economy is highly dependent upon its exports to and huge balance of trade surplus with the UK and will negotiate to preserve that if it can.
So assuming that these are changes in gross GDP being quoted, and the study assumed lower UK population growth of this magnitude, then after 15 years the UK's GDP per head of population would be exactly the same in a free trade Brexit scenario as in a Remain scenario (if for a moment you suspend wider scepticism about the basis of these calculations).
If you change the number of people - you change the gdp figure too.
Also the evidence suggests increased immigration means increased productivity actually gdp per head likely to be lower...
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
That is patently untrue. The EU has erected a giant trade barrier between it and the rest of the world.
And that is patently untrue. The customs union is no more a barrier than the customs border of a nation state is. It just merges its members into a single entity.
Rail safety incident at Leeds not too clever. Looking at the picture of was a passenger accessible coupling, not one between units, that came apart, just as passengers would have been going to the doors. Lucky nobody hurt.
Something similar happened a couple of years ago to a Southern set on its way into VIC for the evening rush hour. On that occasion it was empty stock, but still worrying that this can happen.
What assumptions on immigration and population change are made within these figures?
Note that if the UK's net population grew by 0.34% (220,000) less per annum post Brexit than it would were we to remain in the EU, in 15 years time it would be 5% lower than otherwise. 220,000 less net immigration after an end to migration from the EU is not an unreasonable assumption, given that for all their bluster the EU economy is highly dependent upon its exports to and huge balance of trade surplus with the UK and will negotiate to preserve that if it can.
So assuming that these are changes in gross GDP being quoted, and the study assumed lower UK population growth of this magnitude, then after 15 years the UK's GDP per head of population would be exactly the same in a free trade Brexit scenario as in a Remain scenario (if for a moment you suspend wider scepticism about the basis of these calculations).
If you change the number of people - you change the gdp figure too.
Also the evidence suggests increased immigration means increased productivity actually gdp per head likely to be lower...
I'm not sure about that. Productivity slowed to a crawl after 2007, despite high immigration.
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
It's too early to say.
Leavers don’t want to admit their policy has real economic costs. It’s not stupidity - just a grotesque lack of moral responsibility.
So far, I think the economic consequences of the Leave vote have been benign. The balance of payments has improved due to rising exports and production, and a slowdown in consumption. Employment growth has remained strong, and productivity may now be picking up. I don't see how we could indefinitely act as the EU's consumer of last resort.
That does not mean that I know for certain that the economic consequences will continue to be benign for the next 15 years. That will depend on the economic policies of successive governments.
So far Brexit has cost iu about 2 percentage points of GDP growth. Roughly in line with the Treasury "shock" forecast, funnily enough. Although that forecast did get employment rates badly wrong.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
That is patently untrue. The EU has erected a giant trade barrier between it and the rest of the world.
And that is patently untrue. The customs union is no more a barrier than the customs border of a nation state is. It just merges its members into a single entity.
It's a customs barrier we have 1/28th of a say in.
What assumptions on immigration and population change are made within these figures?
Note that if the UK's net population grew by 0.34% (220,000) less per annum post Brexit than it would were we to remain in the EU, in 15 years time it would be 5% lower than otherwise. 220,000 less net immigration after an end to migration from the EU is not an unreasonable assumption, given that for all their bluster the EU economy is highly dependent upon its exports to and huge balance of trade surplus with the UK and will negotiate to preserve that if it can.
So assuming that these are changes in gross GDP being quoted, and the study assumed lower UK population growth of this magnitude, then after 15 years the UK's GDP per head of population would be exactly the same in a free trade Brexit scenario as in a Remain scenario (if for a moment you suspend wider scepticism about the basis of these calculations).
If you change the number of people - you change the gdp figure too.
Also the evidence suggests increased immigration means increased productivity actually gdp per head likely to be lower...
I'm not sure about that. Productivity slowed to a crawl after 2007, despite high immigration.
Headline productivity has an almost perfect correlation with labour participation rates. As the proportion of people employed rises, productivity falls*, because it is the least productive members of the country joining the workforce. On it's own, it's possibly the single most useless economic statistic.
* France has incredibly high productivity, because high social charges price low skilled workers out the market... raising productivity
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
That is patently untrue. The EU has erected a giant trade barrier between it and the rest of the world.
And that is patently untrue. The customs union is no more a barrier than the customs border of a nation state is. It just merges its members into a single entity.
It's a customs barrier we have 1/28th of a say in.
A quick shift of the goalposts there...
It's that word 'we' again. Actually the UK has more than 1/28th of a say in it, and 'we' collectively have full control of it.
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
It's too early to say.
Leavers don’t want to admit their policy has real economic costs. It’s not stupidity - just a grotesque lack of moral responsibility.
So far, I think the economic consequences of the Leave vote have been benign. The balance of payments has improved due to rising exports and production, and a slowdown in consumption. Employment growth has remained strong, and productivity may now be picking up. I don't see how we could indefinitely act as the EU's consumer of last resort.
That does not mean that I know for certain that the economic consequences will continue to be benign for the next 15 years. That will depend on the economic policies of successive governments.
So far Brexit has cost iu about 2 percentage points of GDP growth. Roughly in line with the Treasury "shock" forecast, funnily enough. Although that forecast did get employment rates badly wrong.
Rail safety incident at Leeds not too clever. Looking at the picture of was a passenger accessible coupling, not one between units, that came apart, just as passengers would have been going to the doors. Lucky nobody hurt.
Something similar happened a couple of years ago to a Southern set on its way into VIC for the evening rush hour. On that occasion it was empty stock, but still worrying that this can happen.
Happened on an Amtrak Acela travelling at 124mph here in the U, S and A the other day.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
That is patently untrue. The EU has erected a giant trade barrier between it and the rest of the world.
I think that's harsh. Outside automotive and agriculture, the EU has lower tariffs than any other major trading bloc, and it also has more FTAs.
Could we be more free trade than the EU - i.e. more like South Korea - yes, of course we could. But the truth is that the EU is less protectionist than the US, China, India or Japan.
He was only convicted of one rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted assault and a number of charges related to drugging victims.
That's one hell of an "only".
I accept that is a lot but under the sentencing guidelines as they stand it is not enough to justify a life sentence. He got an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of eight years, which is effectively a 16 year sentence as an offender will typically serve 50% of the sentence in prison. If a judge steps significantly outside the guidelines without good reason the offender is likely to get a reduced sentence on appeal. In this instance a life sentence is very unlikely to have withstood challenge. If the police hadn't bungled the investigation and he had been convicted of several rapes it would be different.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
That is patently untrue. The EU has erected a giant trade barrier between it and the rest of the world.
I think that's harsh. Outside automotive and agriculture, the EU has lower tariffs than any other major trading bloc, and it also has more FTAs.
Could we be more free trade than the EU - i.e. more like South Korea - yes, of course we could. But the truth is that the EU is less protectionist than the US, China, India or Japan.
Things I got wrong.
South Korea's average tariff is 7.7%. The EU's is 1.6%.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
That is patently untrue. The EU has erected a giant trade barrier between it and the rest of the world.
No. This is, to quote Michael Caine, completely false, as it has it the wrong way around. The EU pulled down trade barriers between member states, but left them in place with the rest of the world, albeit working within the WTO to reduce them, as well as with FTAs and schemes like the one that drops tariffs on goods from poorer nations. Not getting that the trading terms of EU membership aren't a default to be improved upon but the world's most comprehensive free trade agreement, albeit with drawbacks and trade-offs on policy control is why Brexit is such an economically illiterate project.
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
It's too early to say.
Leavers don’t want to admit their policy has real economic costs. It’s not stupidity - just a grotesque lack of moral responsibility.
So far, I think the economic consequences of the Leave vote have been benign. The balance of payments has improved due to rising exports and production, and a slowdown in consumption. Employment growth has remained strong, and productivity may now be picking up. I don't see how we could indefinitely act as the EU's consumer of last resort.
That does not mean that I know for certain that the economic consequences will continue to be benign for the next 15 years. That will depend on the economic policies of successive governments.
So far Brexit has cost iu about 2 percentage points of GDP growth. Roughly in line with the Treasury "shock" forecast, funnily enough. Although that forecast did get employment rates badly wrong.
The economy has grown by 2.8% since June 2016. I am not convinced it would have grown by 4.8%, were it not for the Brexit vote. No one was predicting that sort of growth rate in early 2016.
But the truth is that the EU is less protectionist than the US, China, India or Japan.
Perhaps there's something structural about a multilateral political organisation like the EU that predisposes it to be less protectionist? Perhaps leaving that organisation might unleash domestic political forces that mean we go backwards in this respect?
It is worth spending time with the absurdities of tariffs. The US has a 6.5% tariff on garden umbrellas, but no tariff at all on umbrellas with telescopic shafts. Walking sticks, meanwhile, attract a 4% tariff.
It is worth spending time with the absurdities of tariffs. The US has a 6.5% tariff on garden umbrellas, but no tariff at all on umbrellas with telescopic shafts. Walking sticks, meanwhile, attract a 4% tariff.
It is worth spending time with the absurdities of tariffs. The US has a 6.5% tariff on garden umbrellas, but no tariff at all on umbrellas with telescopic shafts. Walking sticks, meanwhile, attract a 4% tariff.
It is worth spending time with the absurdities of tariffs. The US has a 6.5% tariff on garden umbrellas, but no tariff at all on umbrellas with telescopic shafts. Walking sticks, meanwhile, attract a 4% tariff.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.[...].
But we don’t live in a universe where the only thing that will change is our relationship with Europe. So equally useless, I’d suggest.
What extra growth enhancing actions is the UK going to take that we couldn't take as part of the EU? Either you believe in the power of free trade to enhance growth or not.
Then why not trade freely with the whole world?
We largely do already, and I see little evidence that Leaving will reduce trade barriers to our exports, and not convinced that Imports need easier access.
That is patently untrue. The EU has erected a giant trade barrier between it and the rest of the world.
I think that's harsh. Outside automotive and agriculture, the EU has lower tariffs than any other major trading bloc, and it also has more FTAs.
Could we be more free trade than the EU - i.e. more like South Korea - yes, of course we could. But the truth is that the EU is less protectionist than the US, China, India or Japan.
Things I got wrong.
South Korea's average tariff is 7.7%. The EU's is 1.6%.
Edit to add: South Korea is, of course, unique in having FTAs with China, the EU, the US and Japan.
Assuming the average is weighted by what they actually trade in, is that a major factor? If the EU produced what South Korea does, would its "average tariff" be higher?
Could Leavers tell me whether the regional economic impact assessments are:
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact? 2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision? 3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or 4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
It's too early to say.
Leavers don’t want to admit their policy has real economic costs. It’s not stupidity - just a grotesque lack of moral responsibility.
So far, I think the economic consequences of the Leave vote have been benign. The balance of payments has improved due to rising exports and production, and a slowdown in consumption. Employment growth has remained strong, and productivity may now be picking up. I don't see how we could indefinitely act as the EU's consumer of last resort.
That does not mean that I know for certain that the economic consequences will continue to be benign for the next 15 years. That will depend on the economic policies of successive governments.
So far Brexit has cost iu about 2 percentage points of GDP growth. Roughly in line with the Treasury "shock" forecast, funnily enough. Although that forecast did get employment rates badly wrong.
This is crap science.
You can't cherrypick parts of the forecast.
If the forecast got the employment rates wrong, then it is not trustworthy. Period.
It is worth spending time with the absurdities of tariffs. The US has a 6.5% tariff on garden umbrellas, but no tariff at all on umbrellas with telescopic shafts. Walking sticks, meanwhile, attract a 4% tariff.
Last time I checked there were 20+ classifications of milk under the CET.
All tariff schedules have to fit into WTO categories, so the US, Japan, etc. will all have 20+ classifications.
The US, for what it's worth, imposes a 17.5% tariff on most kinds of milk. Infant formula imported into the US is worse, however. Getting a per kg charge, and then a percentage on top.
It is worth spending time with the absurdities of tariffs. The US has a 6.5% tariff on garden umbrellas, but no tariff at all on umbrellas with telescopic shafts. Walking sticks, meanwhile, attract a 4% tariff.
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
Not many Conservative seats in the north east or Northern Ireland. If turkeys voted for Christmas, they can't complain too much about paxo suppositories.
I think you’ll find that they can.
I don't mind. Just so long as those of us who are keeping the country afloat aren't in due course going to be expected to shovel more money in the direction of people who voted to immiserate the entire nation. Something about making beds and lying on them springs to mind.
I have no problem helping my fellow citizens regardless of their political beliefs.
It is worth spending time with the absurdities of tariffs. The US has a 6.5% tariff on garden umbrellas, but no tariff at all on umbrellas with telescopic shafts. Walking sticks, meanwhile, attract a 4% tariff.
Last time I checked there were 20+ classifications of milk under the CET.
All tariff schedules have to fit into WTO categories, so the US, Japan, etc. will all have 20+ classifications.
The US, for what it's worth, imposes a 17.5% tariff on most kinds of milk. Infant formula imported into the US is worse, however. Getting a per kg charge, and then a percentage on top.
Long-term forecasts are, of course, universally wrong. You still need something to plan with, though. In my experience it's a coin-toss as to whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
Universally wrong, but on average right (half the time too optimistic, half too pessimistic)?
It's a conditional forecast. For example, I can't predict how much you will weigh 10 years from now, but I know that, all things being equal, you will weigh more if you eat an extra bar of chocolate every day and I can quantify the effect.
Nice analogy. I was trying to think of one.
Is it really? Economic forecasts would be even worse if they only looked at one side of the issue.
I don’t know what you mean by saying one side of the issue.
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy. Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
Bearing in mind the share value of Tesla being greater than General Motors, plus Tesla has a lot of deposits on cars not yet built or delivered, am I the only one who is suspicious that Tesla has elements of a Ponzi scheme about it?
Electric cars and private rockets may be the future, but I am not convinced by the business model.
A lot of It's based on the fact Musk and his investors have deep pockets and, with the exception of the bonkers stuff he seems to spout for publicity, a fairly decent track record of coming through on their promises. You're not investing in Tesla's ability to deliver x cars for y profit, but making a bet the company has the foresight and financial backing to turn its intellectual property into profit. Compare that to GM, whose sales have declined and who have continually made been behind the curve on changing tastes since the mid-2000s, when Americans started to question the wisdom of blowing money on huge, expensive, roughly made vehicles.
Comments
For starters he's opposed to sovereign nations being members of a Federation....
Conditional forecasts only have to work out the impact of one change on the economy.
Unconditional forecasts can go wrong for a million different things and so are much less useful.
The Treasury Green Book even recommends applying a weighting to account for it.
In 2003 prudent low tax Wandsworth and Westminster put their council taxes up by 43 and 27 per cent. Those were the days!
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story
If you do a forecast on say BMW right now and risk asses Brexit it’ll probably say “bump in the roa”, but it’s a cash rich, solid company, packed with the latest automotive tech etc it’ll grow by x% in 15 years. Then along comes Elon Musk on a day off from colonising Mars and announces he’s got a battery that’s ten times more powerful, at a tenth of the weight, and can charge up for a 500 mile range in two minutes using an egg whisk and BMW suddenly look like saddle makers circa 1910.
The 15 year forecasts are utterly utterly useless claptrap.
The report that was produced by the Home Office, published in 2003, did not predict a dramatic increase in immigration from Europe. The challenge for the team that wrote the report was a lack of data. The iron curtain meant that there was little recent history of free migration from eastern European countries. The authors therefore had to use Commonwealth countries, ranging from Australia to Swaziland, to make their forecasts. Based on their calculations, the report predicted that Britain would receive between 5,000 to 13,000 net immigrants per year averaged over a ten year period from the new member states.
Out by a factor of four to eight!
Regarding the CPS not prosecuting him for more offences, I presume they went for those cases where the evidence was strongest. Even then they only managed to secure a single rape conviction. Adding more offences where the evidence was weak may have diluted the case which could have resulted in him being convicted of fewer offences. The basic problem is that, due to him drugging his victims and the fact that most delayed before going to the authorities, there was no solid evidence of rape in most of the cases.
As for the Ministry of Justice (NOT the Home Office) failing to seek judicial review, I rather suspect that any attempt would have been thrown out on the grounds that the Ministry of Justice does not have standing to bring such a case. There is also an argument that, given the Parole Board's relationship with the MoJ, it could be regarded as the MoJ bringing a case against itself.
I always thought that the attempt to get judicial review by the victims was more likely to succeed.
It really would be the event that would force the country to live within its means.
We'd get the cuts to public spending that was political unacceptable for George Osborne to deliver.
So we'd cut spending on things like Tax Credits.
Bring it on, I'm nearly tumescent at the prospect.
BiB - Given the lack of precedent for something like Brexit, you'd think the analysts would be a bit more circumspect when it comes to the presentation of their forecasts.
They also had an estimate for what would happen if they did apply controls.
Changes will happen whether we are in or out of the EU but if you put barriers in the way of trade then all else being the same, don't be surprised if growth is lower.
The upside potential is all of the "something may turn up" kind. In the long term that's as good as it gets, but in the medium term you can't model unknown unknowns. People may switch investment from the EU to the UK, but there is (a) no current plausible reason for them to do so and (b) there is no evidence of this happening. There are however very concrete reasons to switch investment from the UK to the EU and plenty of evidence that this is happening right now.
But the analysts rightly said - we can’t predict what other countries are going to do... it’s a political decision for them.
Hence the benefit of a conditional forecast rather than an unconditional one.
If the aim was to benefit the economy from the migrants... then not so much.
Personally I think the Brexit vote had many many causes and can’t be reduced to a decision taken a decade before on immigration.
Personally I think the differences in terms if benefit or detriment are so slight as to be secondary to the basic idea of freedom of movement being a good thing. But just in your terms of economics your claim is certainly open to challenge.
1. WRONG in their claimed direction of impact?
2. WRONG in their claimed level of precision?
3. WRONG in their orderings of relative impacts between regions? or
4. WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Leavers seem to be wobbling between all four answers (and, indeed, wobbling generally).
Oil prices might collapse, there might be some new technology that boosts productivity... all these things could happen. But they would happen in both possible futures. Therefore if you are subtracting Brexit from Remain, they cancel out.
I find that encouraging.
https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735773598913204224
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/no-breakthrough-after-robust-brexit-war-cabinet-meeting-huffpost-uk-learns_uk_5a7b43f3e4b044b382189efe
A well-placed Cabinet source described the meeting as “robust”, and said: “People lived up to their stereotypes.”
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mayhem-at-leeds-station-as-train-splits-in-two-1-9006706/amp&ved=2ahUKEwi71-LuwJTZAhXpJsAKHQNvBscQFjAAegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw1UGNP2DAlNetCdLPFNDfiU&cf=1
Electric cars and private rockets may be the future, but I am not convinced by the business model.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218141514/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr2503.pdf
It's macro and most people don't see how it benefits them directly as its benefits are not evenly spread. Iran has a higher GDP than Norway - but it's not as happy or as wealthy.
Maybe that's the problem - still fighting using the same arguments that failed in June 2016. Or to put it another way there is more to life than money. What use is earning double when prices have risen ten fold?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/24/robert-kennedy-gdp
Note that if the UK's net population grew by 0.34% (220,000) less per annum post Brexit than it would were we to remain in the EU, in 15 years time it would be 5% lower than otherwise. 220,000 less net immigration after an end to migration from the EU is not an unreasonable assumption, given that for all their bluster the EU economy is highly dependent upon its exports to and huge balance of trade surplus with the UK and will negotiate to preserve that if it can.
So assuming that these are changes in gross GDP being quoted, and the study assumed lower UK population growth of this magnitude, then after 15 years the UK's GDP per head of population would be exactly the same in a free trade Brexit scenario as in a Remain scenario (if for a moment you suspend wider scepticism about the basis of these calculations).
To cite others off the top of my head, if we crack wave power in Swansea Bay in the next five years we could be looking at something equally “disruptive”. Ditto if we actually decide to frack like mad, or introduce a flat rate tax, or we cure some common cancers, or Italy votes out of the Euro and so on.
Fifteen years ago we were still debating the merits of invading Iraq - a lots happened since to say the least.
They have multiple other issues around manufacturing, technology, battery supply and no doubt finance too.
That does not mean that I know for certain that the economic consequences will continue to be benign for the next 15 years. That will depend on the economic policies of successive governments.
It is I suppose possible that we will some new technology that fundamentally changes trade.
If someone invented a teleporter, then I imagine the Treasury gravity models would be pretty useless.
Measuring wealth and happiness is way more complicated than GDP and headline earnings.
The biggest economic policy of all is Brexit. A significant net negative, especially to our poorer regions.
Also the evidence suggests increased immigration means increased productivity actually gdp per head likely to be lower...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPARr3yp6ys
* France has incredibly high productivity, because high social charges price low skilled workers out the market... raising productivity
It's that word 'we' again. Actually the UK has more than 1/28th of a say in it, and 'we' collectively have full control of it.
Could we be more free trade than the EU - i.e. more like South Korea - yes, of course we could. But the truth is that the EU is less protectionist than the US, China, India or Japan.
South Korea's average tariff is 7.7%. The EU's is 1.6%.
See: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?year_high_desc=true
Edit to add: South Korea is, of course, unique in having FTAs with China, the EU, the US and Japan.
See: https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter 66?release=2018HTSARevision1
So: it's better to import walking sticks and garden umbrellas into the EU, but if your umbrella has a telescopic shaft, the US is the place to go.
Don't all thank me at once for digging out this essential information.
You can't cherrypick parts of the forecast.
If the forecast got the employment rates wrong, then it is not trustworthy. Period.
The US, for what it's worth, imposes a 17.5% tariff on most kinds of milk. Infant formula imported into the US is worse, however. Getting a per kg charge, and then a percentage on top.
See: https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter 19?release=2018HTSARevision1