It’s pretty clear that the leave elite hate Brussels more then they love the UK.
There no patriots
Agree, the switch to hard brexit at all costs despite so many leavers advocating 'doing a Norway or Switzerland' during the campaign, just shows that it is about beating the other guy, not what is best for the country.
It’s pretty clear that the leave elite hate Brussels more then they love the UK.
There no patriots
Agree, the switch to hard brexit at all costs despite so many leavers advocating 'doing a Norway or Switzerland' during the campaign, just shows that it is about beating the other guy, not what is best for the country.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Any prediction that all the people involved in this prediction are people who never wanted Brexit has to be suspect too...
That's hilarious. The Eurozone debt pumped round by the ECB is double ours as a % of GDP. As soon as any market goes into reverse they're fucked within 6 months. Of course it's good when the US is at an all time high. It's just hilarious that experts think an opinion in a stable time is any indicator of even the near future fiscal situation.
I'm not wanting a Euro breakup but the same issues in South Med countries are still there, and austerity at the next downturn will not be accepted. A re-modelling, indeed a break up with S Med countries is highly likely.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Sentix surveyed about 1,000 institutional and retail investors in the poll conducted Jan. 25-27. Do you have a breakdown on the location of these investors?
I would be very interested in understanding this more clearly.
Also, so it is transparent, the survey is based on expectations of the 19-nation currency bloc to split within the next 12 months, which is obviously not going to happen. It is not about the EU itself ... which, just to clarify, I also do not expect to split in the next 12 months.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
Although I do not accept your point-for your own consistency's sake you should note that 'only' 43% of voters voted yes in the 1975 referendum-so that vote was not the 'will of the people' either.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
Although I do not accept your point-for your own consistency's sake you should note that 'only' 43% of voters voted yes in the 1975 referendum-so that vote was not the 'will of the people' either.
No because we had to put up with people's whinging for 40 years after that. That's unfortunately how democracy works; very few political issues actually enjoy a majority in public opinion terms.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
I am sure if you took out people with cats, dogs, goldfish and drove silver cars you could probably knock a few more percent off.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
I am sure if you took out people with cats, dogs, goldfish and drove silver cars you could probably knock a few more percent off.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
To repeat: it's not a prediction. It's an economic model. It's used to compare different scenarios, all other things being equal. If the difference between those two things is lost on you, I can understand why you might think that they are the same thing. They are not.
Imagine a football match that is going to take place some time in the future. Say Man United v Arsenal in the FA Cup Final. You can make a prediction or a forecast, based on all the facts you know and all the assumptions you can make. But it will only be a prediction. You could come up with a prediction that Man Utd will win, 2-1. Other people may come up with other predictions, all of which may be equally valid. And then, when the match is played, you can see which prediction is right.
But a model works in a different way. You compare different scenarios. You could look at all the matches where Man Utd have played with a back three or a back four. You could look at all the matches where Arsenal have played against a team with a back three or a back four. And you could see that (for example) Man Utd tend to win more games with a back three and Arsenal tend to lose more games when they play against a team with a back three. So you can conclude that, all other things being equal, Man Utd will do better against Arsenal if they play with a back three. That's a model.
Do you see how they are different? Further, do you see that they are just as reliable, no matter which team is supported by the bloke that typed up the report?
Of course, to extend the analogy, these reports would have to include more than just the shape of the defence; they would have to take into account many other factors. None of which would be affected by which team is supported by the bloke with the typewriter.
Of course, if a Man Utd fan predicts they will win 2-1, you might decide to ignore that prediction. You could say "I am sorry to say that any prediction about the result of the Cup Final will be from people who want Man Utd to win has to be suspect". Fair enough. But to reject a model, in the same way is disingenuous.
The model confirm that the harder the Brexit, the worse it will be - comparatively - for the UK economy. The obvious conclusion is that we should avoid a hard Brexit and give the most serious consideration to - for example - staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, extending EU membership, or other considerations.
You may decide that you would prefer a different conclusion and have strong reasons why we should suffer a hard Brexit, including reasons that - in your view - make up for the economic hardship that a hard Brexit would cause.
If you do, that's fine. Share your views as to why a hard Brexit is worth the demonstrable damage it will cause to the UK. But don't just reject a report simply because you think it's biased (and you think it's biased because it demonstrates that a hard Brexit should be avoided).
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
To repeat: it's not a prediction. It's an economic model. It's used to compare different scenarios, all other things being equal. If the difference between those two things is lost on you, I can understand why you might think that they are the same thing. They are not.
Imagine a football match that is going to take place some time in the future. Say Man United v Arsenal in the FA Cup Final. You can make a prediction or a forecast, based on all the facts you know and all the assumptions you can make. But it will only be a prediction. You could come up with a prediction that Man Utd will win, 2-1. Other people may come up with other predictions, all of which may be equally valid. And then, when the match is played, you can see which prediction is right.
But a model works in a different way. You compare different scenarios. You could look at all the matches where Man Utd have played with a back three or a back four. You could look at all the matches where Arsenal have played against a team with a back three or a back four. And you could see that (for example) Man Utd tend to win more games with a back three and Arsenal tend to lose more games when they play against a team with a back three. So you can conclude that, all other things being equal, Man Utd will do better against Arsenal if they play with a back three. That's a model.
Do you see how they are different? Further, do you see that they are just as reliable, no matter which team is supported by the bloke that typed up the report?
Of course, to extend the analogy, these reports would have to include more than just the shape of the defence; they would have to take into account many other factors. None of which would be affected by which team is supported by the bloke with the typewriter.
Of course, if a Man Utd fan predicts they will win 2-1, you might decide to ignore that prediction. You could say "I am sorry to say that any prediction about the result of the Cup Final will be from people who want Man Utd to win has to be suspect". Fair enough. But to reject a model, in the same way is disingenuous.
The model confirm that the harder the Brexit, the worse it will be - comparatively - for the UK economy. The obvious conclusion is that we should avoid a hard Brexit and give the most serious consideration to - for example - staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, extending EU membership, or other considerations.
You may decide that you would prefer a different conclusion and have strong reasons why we should suffer a hard Brexit, including reasons that - in your view - make up for the economic hardship that a hard Brexit would cause.
If you do, that's fine. Share your views as to why a hard Brexit is worth the demonstrable damage it will cause to the UK. But don't just reject a report simply because you think it's biased (and you think it's biased because it demonstrates that a hard Brexit should be avoided).
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
A brief look at almost all the tabloids, plus the Telegraph and the coverage twonks like Farage, Moggy, Boris et al get should disabuse anyone of the notion that there's some sinister, dark forces constituting a majority working against Brexit in the media.
That said then basically what you're saying is the institutions from your list of "conspirators" remaining are those with access to the full data, facts and expertise as to whether Brexit will be beneficial or not? You can probably add the legal and law enforcement institutions to your list too. And those involved in ensuring our products and food are safe too. And the trade unions. And the medical profession. And so on...
On balance then, those with the most grasp of what it will mean in practise are very much against pursuing a policy that they view as detrimental to their area of expertise. Presented with this most overwhelming amount of expert evidence, from in some cases industries or institutions that might be on opposite sides of the table, the sensible, sane approach would be for the government to as a minimum pause to reflect on the decision. Instead we get Ministers standing in the House undermining the work, covering up the reality of what we are facing and riding roughshod over centuries of parliament process.
As suggested last year, if May and Hammond are pushed and hard Brexiteers takeover then we may find that the likes of Clarke, Heseltine and others cross the floor to bring down the government. They detest the duplicity that has brought us to this point and simply do not believe that the EU is the problem. They have hinted that they will place the interests of the country above Party in pursuit of EFTA membership aka a "soft" Brexit. The likes of Rees Mogg have their moment in the limelight but the fact remains that they represent just 1/3 of the electorate.
Those peddling the Clegg / Blair line about fighting the referendum are missing the point. The battleground in 2018 is "Canada vs Norway" as highlighted in the piece by Varoufakis.
It is only when that dispute is settled can the nation consider the details. If May and Hammond cannot deliver a Norway option then they should fall on their swords given that the economic models are most probably true re. the impact of a Canada option.
We either stay in the SM and CU or not. Latest polls suggest a landslide in favour of this option which happens to be very close to Labour policy. That is to stay as a Scandi style semi-detached nation with sovereignty for our Parliament and pooled sovereignty over trade arrangements.
Those in favour of leaving have have provided no vision except to drop membership of the largest trade bloc in the world and pursue random opportunities elsewhere.
The Labour Party are in a complete shambles as far as Brexit is concerned. They are so desperate, led by the swivel eyed Momentum lunatics, to keep their northern base that they have assumed they can ignore their other base in London and the South east. I know I am not alone in being a life long Labour voter who did not vote Labour at the last election solely because of their failure to fight against any kind of Brexit. I think Labour will lose some seats in London in the next election if they continue to treat their London supporters like they were moronic Brexit voters.
You've ventured onto some very complex territory which reminds us all that this is a multi-dimensional challenge.
Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are very impressive metropolitan Labour leaders, but how much are they part of the 2018 strategic thinking within Labour? As others have stated, Labour is on a journey - its manifesto for the 2017 election is a sound starting point.
Varoufakis has stood on platforms with McDonnell and they share some views on the EU. I don't believe Labour is a shambles - it's in a great position to respond and evolve in 2018 whereas the Tories are split right down the middle.
Corbyn and McDonnell could easily align with the EU27 and the majority of the UK electorate, especially now that Barnier has a defined position and the economic forecasts re no deal etc. have been leaked.
It's all about timing and the UK has most of the year to resolve. Meanwhile Labour are working hard in the Lords in an attempt to ensure that Parliament has a proper say at the end of the process. Something else hard Brexiteers and Cabinet do not approve of!
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Only 37% voted leave. Not a majority. Not the will of the people.
I've seen this figure mentioned regularly and really don't understand the logic behind it. I'm not saying I agree with the decision but the bottom line is, the majority of people who voted on the issue, voted leave.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
To repeat: it's not a prediction. It's an economic model. It's used to compare different scenarios, all other things being equal. If the difference between those two things is lost on you, I can understand why you might think that they are the same thing. They are not.
Imagine a football match that is going to take place some time in the future. Say Man United v Arsenal in the FA Cup Final. You can make a prediction or a forecast, based on all the facts you know and all the assumptions you can make. But it will only be a prediction. You could come up with a prediction that Man Utd will win, 2-1. Other people may come up with other predictions, all of which may be equally valid. And then, when the match is played, you can see which prediction is right.
But a model works in a different way. You compare different scenarios. You could look at all the matches where Man Utd have played with a back three or a back four. You could look at all the matches where Arsenal have played against a team with a back three or a back four. And you could see that (for example) Man Utd tend to win more games with a back three and Arsenal tend to lose more games when they play against a team with a back three. So you can conclude that, all other things being equal, Man Utd will do better against Arsenal if they play with a back three. That's a model.
Do you see how they are different? Further, do you see that they are just as reliable, no matter which team is supported by the bloke that typed up the report?
Of course, to extend the analogy, these reports would have to include more than just the shape of the defence; they would have to take into account many other factors. None of which would be affected by which team is supported by the bloke with the typewriter.
Of course, if a Man Utd fan predicts they will win 2-1, you might decide to ignore that prediction. You could say "I am sorry to say that any prediction about the result of the Cup Final will be from people who want Man Utd to win has to be suspect". Fair enough. But to reject a model, in the same way is disingenuous.
The model confirm that the harder the Brexit, the worse it will be - comparatively - for the UK economy. The obvious conclusion is that we should avoid a hard Brexit and give the most serious consideration to - for example - staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, extending EU membership, or other considerations.
You may decide that you would prefer a different conclusion and have strong reasons why we should suffer a hard Brexit, including reasons that - in your view - make up for the economic hardship that a hard Brexit would cause.
If you do, that's fine. Share your views as to why a hard Brexit is worth the demonstrable damage it will cause to the UK. But don't just reject a report simply because you think it's biased (and you think it's biased because it demonstrates that a hard Brexit should be avoided).
You are quite right that I support Brexit for non economic reasons. However, I have also been involved in business for over 20 years and have studied economics and the economy for longer. Modelling in the way you describe it is one way of approaching an understanding of what might happen if what we currently know were to be projected into the future, and nothing else were to happen.
In reality there are vanishing few models which survive contact with reality. This is because economies are organic changing things which respond to a myriad of events both at home and abroad. It would not be worth me listing the things which might happen to challenge the Treasury model-because there are too many and most of them will be unpredictable. However, one thing which might happen for example is that if we were to ever leave the EU (unlikely in my opinion) there were to be a rush of enthusiasm for starting new businesses (just as there was a spike in consumption after the referendum as happy Leavers went on a spending spree). This would change the model.
Or, if a UK government were to take back control of interest rate policy and push up rates to shake out British businesses and get rid of the 'zombies'. This too would change things in unmodelled ways.
Treasury models do not factor in changes of policy, international events, Euro crises or all the things we know might happen to change the equation. Some of these might be negative and make the British economy worse and some might make it outperfrom the EU. Nobody knows. Basing your view of whether Brexit is a good thing is fairly meaningless-and this approach was rejected in 2016 by a majority of voters whose good sense and scepticism is worhth more than the models of treasury mandarins with a political agenda.
This from the Treasury in May 2016 on what a leave vote would mean:
A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow. The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.
This was supposed to be the effect of a leave vote. Instead, as I noted before, there was an uptick in consumption which nobody saw coming and which was almost certainly down to happiness about the vote..
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Well, there is clearly a majority for Brexit within the government, and sadly the main opposition. Otherwise why are they continually saying Brexit is going ahead no matter what, so why you claim them in your list is a mystery?
As for the other groups you mention, Bournemouth Addick has answered that perfectly. If they all believe remaining is the right thing to do, with inside knowledge and years of experience, maybe they are worth listening to rather than the small minority (by your definition) who don't?
You and your ilk will continue to ignore wave after wave of evidence that it isn't going to end well, of course, without actually saying anything more constructive than "nobody knows".
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
Brexiteeers are a strange bunch, on the one hand they claim the majority want to leave, whilst on the other claim everybody is secretly a remainer working against them. Which is it?
Not everybody, but large majorities of powerful people in every walk of life. If you disagree, let me know where there is in government, civil service, business, academia or media a majority for Brexit.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Well, there is clearly a majority for Brexit within the government, and sadly the main opposition. Otherwise why are they continually saying Brexit is going ahead no matter what, so why you claim them in your list is a mystery?
As for the other groups you mention, Bournemouth Addick has answered that perfectly. If they all believe remaining is the right thing to do, with inside knowledge and years of experience, maybe they are worth listening to rather than the small minority (by your definition) who don't?
You and your ilk will continue to ignore wave after wave of evidence that it isn't going to end well, of course, without actually saying anything more constructive than "nobody knows".
There is no majority for Brexit in either main party-just a lot of MPs who have been trying to find a way out of it since referendum day. We will either end up staying or have a ridiculous Brexit in name only which will satisfy nobody.
The 'wave after wave of evidence' is coming from people who never wanted to leave. It is going to be, with the best will in the world, biased towards the outcome they want. If you know anything about human nature you will know that to be true.
I am afraid that what many of the expert Remainers have in common is a distrust of democracy and of us, the electorate-we who are in the end the final guardians and guarantors of democracy.
There's certainly some toxicity around the numbers presented to the Cabinet and leaked to Buzzfeed. But they can't be dismissed as being merely predictions or forecasts. They are models of how the economy might perform in different scenarios, ie the hardness or softness of Brexit. So, while they might not stand up to careful scrutiny after the fact, how they are useful is to compare how we will/would perform in circumstances that differ in only one regard, ie Brexit.
The models do not say we will be worse off in the future than we are now if we have a hard Brexit. They say we will be worse off in the future if we have a hard Brexit than we would be if we do not have a hard Brexit. They are plain and simple demonstrations that a hard Brexit will cause more harm to the economy than not having a hard Brexit.
As a set of data on which to base a decision, they are clear. And that decision *must* be to avoid a hard Brexit. However, in these enlightened times we are encouraged to trust our political leaders more than economic experts. And I am sure that Gove, Johnson, Fox, Davis and May know exactly what they're doing.
(That last sentence has not been passed for accuracy).
I am sorry to say that any prediction about how damaging Brexit will be from people whio never wanted Brexit have to be suspect.
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
To repeat: it's not a prediction. It's an economic model. It's used to compare different scenarios, all other things being equal. If the difference between those two things is lost on you, I can understand why you might think that they are the same thing. They are not.
Imagine a football match that is going to take place some time in the future. Say Man United v Arsenal in the FA Cup Final. You can make a prediction or a forecast, based on all the facts you know and all the assumptions you can make. But it will only be a prediction. You could come up with a prediction that Man Utd will win, 2-1. Other people may come up with other predictions, all of which may be equally valid. And then, when the match is played, you can see which prediction is right.
But a model works in a different way. You compare different scenarios. You could look at all the matches where Man Utd have played with a back three or a back four. You could look at all the matches where Arsenal have played against a team with a back three or a back four. And you could see that (for example) Man Utd tend to win more games with a back three and Arsenal tend to lose more games when they play against a team with a back three. So you can conclude that, all other things being equal, Man Utd will do better against Arsenal if they play with a back three. That's a model.
Do you see how they are different? Further, do you see that they are just as reliable, no matter which team is supported by the bloke that typed up the report?
Of course, to extend the analogy, these reports would have to include more than just the shape of the defence; they would have to take into account many other factors. None of which would be affected by which team is supported by the bloke with the typewriter.
Of course, if a Man Utd fan predicts they will win 2-1, you might decide to ignore that prediction. You could say "I am sorry to say that any prediction about the result of the Cup Final will be from people who want Man Utd to win has to be suspect". Fair enough. But to reject a model, in the same way is disingenuous.
The model confirm that the harder the Brexit, the worse it will be - comparatively - for the UK economy. The obvious conclusion is that we should avoid a hard Brexit and give the most serious consideration to - for example - staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, extending EU membership, or other considerations.
You may decide that you would prefer a different conclusion and have strong reasons why we should suffer a hard Brexit, including reasons that - in your view - make up for the economic hardship that a hard Brexit would cause.
If you do, that's fine. Share your views as to why a hard Brexit is worth the demonstrable damage it will cause to the UK. But don't just reject a report simply because you think it's biased (and you think it's biased because it demonstrates that a hard Brexit should be avoided).
To continue the football analogy...
The Brexit reports are like a scouting report of the opposition, so if Man Utd have great pace up front and big centre halves who come up for corners then any decent manager should make preparations to counter or mitigate.
If we ignore these warnings then Brexit is being managed by Karel Fraeye, "UK economy spread yourself out a bit".
If we act to counter/mitigate then just because we get a sneaky win does not mean that the original scouting report was wrong or should have been ignored.
As suggested last year, if May and Hammond are pushed and hard Brexiteers takeover then we may find that the likes of Clarke, Heseltine and others cross the floor to bring down the government. They detest the duplicity that has brought us to this point and simply do not believe that the EU is the problem. They have hinted that they will place the interests of the country above Party in pursuit of EFTA membership aka a "soft" Brexit. The likes of Rees Mogg have their moment in the limelight but the fact remains that they represent just 1/3 of the electorate.
Those peddling the Clegg / Blair line about fighting the referendum are missing the point. The battleground in 2018 is "Canada vs Norway" as highlighted in the piece by Varoufakis.
It is only when that dispute is settled can the nation consider the details. If May and Hammond cannot deliver a Norway option then they should fall on their swords given that the economic models are most probably true re. the impact of a Canada option.
We either stay in the SM and CU or not. Latest polls suggest a landslide in favour of this option which happens to be very close to Labour policy. That is to stay as a Scandi style semi-detached nation with sovereignty for our Parliament and pooled sovereignty over trade arrangements.
Those in favour of leaving have have provided no vision except to drop membership of the largest trade bloc in the world and pursue random opportunities elsewhere.
The Labour Party are in a complete shambles as far as Brexit is concerned. They are so desperate, led by the swivel eyed Momentum lunatics, to keep their northern base that they have assumed they can ignore their other base in London and the South east. I know I am not alone in being a life long Labour voter who did not vote Labour at the last election solely because of their failure to fight against any kind of Brexit. I think Labour will lose some seats in London in the next election if they continue to treat their London supporters like they were moronic Brexit voters.
You've ventured onto some very complex territory which reminds us all that this is a multi-dimensional challenge.
Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are very impressive metropolitan Labour leaders, but how much are they part of the 2018 strategic thinking within Labour? As others have stated, Labour is on a journey - its manifesto for the 2017 election is a sound starting point.
Varoufakis has stood on platforms with McDonnell and they share some views on the EU. I don't believe Labour is a shambles - it's in a great position to respond and evolve in 2018 whereas the Tories are split right down the middle.
Corbyn and McDonnell could easily align with the EU27 and the majority of the UK electorate, especially now that Barnier has a defined position and the economic forecasts re no deal etc. have been leaked.
It's all about timing and the UK has most of the year to resolve. Meanwhile Labour are working hard in the Lords in an attempt to ensure that Parliament has a proper say at the end of the process. Something else hard Brexiteers and Cabinet do not approve of!
. Well I will go with you some of the way on this.
I agree that Labour could remove the massive fence post from its ignoble backside between now and the end of the year. It is in a position to do that but are there any sign they are going to?
Each time Corbyn is questioned he gives the opposite impression. He also maintains that a Norway style Brexit is not Brexit - tell that to millions of Norwegians.
Just today Labour in the HOL has decided not to back an amendment by Adonis for a referendum on the deal.
I think that the country is at a tipping point & that opinion is moving at least in the direction of a referendum. It needs leadership which is not being offered.
In the meantime Labour is losing members - OK they still have a load but perhaps they are coming away from their high point.
Finally given the utter shambles of the Tories at the moment they should be way ahead in the polls imho.
As suggested last year, if May and Hammond are pushed and hard Brexiteers takeover then we may find that the likes of Clarke, Heseltine and others cross the floor to bring down the government. They detest the duplicity that has brought us to this point and simply do not believe that the EU is the problem. They have hinted that they will place the interests of the country above Party in pursuit of EFTA membership aka a "soft" Brexit. The likes of Rees Mogg have their moment in the limelight but the fact remains that they represent just 1/3 of the electorate.
Those peddling the Clegg / Blair line about fighting the referendum are missing the point. The battleground in 2018 is "Canada vs Norway" as highlighted in the piece by Varoufakis.
It is only when that dispute is settled can the nation consider the details. If May and Hammond cannot deliver a Norway option then they should fall on their swords given that the economic models are most probably true re. the impact of a Canada option.
We either stay in the SM and CU or not. Latest polls suggest a landslide in favour of this option which happens to be very close to Labour policy. That is to stay as a Scandi style semi-detached nation with sovereignty for our Parliament and pooled sovereignty over trade arrangements.
Those in favour of leaving have have provided no vision except to drop membership of the largest trade bloc in the world and pursue random opportunities elsewhere.
The Labour Party are in a complete shambles as far as Brexit is concerned. They are so desperate, led by the swivel eyed Momentum lunatics, to keep their northern base that they have assumed they can ignore their other base in London and the South east. I know I am not alone in being a life long Labour voter who did not vote Labour at the last election solely because of their failure to fight against any kind of Brexit. I think Labour will lose some seats in London in the next election if they continue to treat their London supporters like they were moronic Brexit voters.
You've ventured onto some very complex territory which reminds us all that this is a multi-dimensional challenge.
Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are very impressive metropolitan Labour leaders, but how much are they part of the 2018 strategic thinking within Labour? As others have stated, Labour is on a journey - its manifesto for the 2017 election is a sound starting point.
Varoufakis has stood on platforms with McDonnell and they share some views on the EU. I don't believe Labour is a shambles - it's in a great position to respond and evolve in 2018 whereas the Tories are split right down the middle.
Corbyn and McDonnell could easily align with the EU27 and the majority of the UK electorate, especially now that Barnier has a defined position and the economic forecasts re no deal etc. have been leaked.
It's all about timing and the UK has most of the year to resolve. Meanwhile Labour are working hard in the Lords in an attempt to ensure that Parliament has a proper say at the end of the process. Something else hard Brexiteers and Cabinet do not approve of!
. Well I will go with you some of the way on this.
I agree that Labour could remove the massive fence post from its ignoble backside between now and the end of the year. It is in a position to do that but are there any sign they are going to?
Each time Corbyn is questioned he gives the opposite impression. He also maintains that a Norway style Brexit is not Brexit - tell that to millions of Norwegians.
Just today Labour in the HOL has decided not to back an amendment by Adonis for a referendum on the deal.
I think that the country is at a tipping point & that opinion is moving at least in the direction of a referendum. It needs leadership which is not being offered.
In the meantime Labour is losing members - OK they still have a load but perhaps they are coming away from their high point.
Finally given the utter shambles of the Tories at the moment they should be way ahead in the polls imho.
Agree, a half decent Labour Party would drive a coach and horses through the Conservatives.
Comments
There no patriots
Even Treasury officials are human and like all humans they will be confirming their biases.
I'm not wanting a Euro breakup but the same issues in South Med countries are still there, and austerity at the next downturn will not be accepted. A re-modelling, indeed a break up with S Med countries is highly likely.
Sentix surveyed about 1,000 institutional and retail investors in the poll conducted Jan. 25-27. Do you have a breakdown on the location of these investors?
I would be very interested in understanding this more clearly.
Also, so it is transparent, the survey is based on expectations of the 19-nation currency bloc to split within the next 12 months, which is obviously not going to happen. It is not about the EU itself ... which, just to clarify, I also do not expect to split in the next 12 months.
I am not 'claiming' that the majority want to leave, by the way. We actually voted on it.
Imagine a football match that is going to take place some time in the future. Say Man United v Arsenal in the FA Cup Final. You can make a prediction or a forecast, based on all the facts you know and all the assumptions you can make. But it will only be a prediction. You could come up with a prediction that Man Utd will win, 2-1. Other people may come up with other predictions, all of which may be equally valid. And then, when the match is played, you can see which prediction is right.
But a model works in a different way. You compare different scenarios. You could look at all the matches where Man Utd have played with a back three or a back four. You could look at all the matches where Arsenal have played against a team with a back three or a back four. And you could see that (for example) Man Utd tend to win more games with a back three and Arsenal tend to lose more games when they play against a team with a back three. So you can conclude that, all other things being equal, Man Utd will do better against Arsenal if they play with a back three. That's a model.
Do you see how they are different? Further, do you see that they are just as reliable, no matter which team is supported by the bloke that typed up the report?
Of course, to extend the analogy, these reports would have to include more than just the shape of the defence; they would have to take into account many other factors. None of which would be affected by which team is supported by the bloke with the typewriter.
Of course, if a Man Utd fan predicts they will win 2-1, you might decide to ignore that prediction. You could say "I am sorry to say that any prediction about the result of the Cup Final will be from people who want Man Utd to win has to be suspect". Fair enough. But to reject a model, in the same way is disingenuous.
The model confirm that the harder the Brexit, the worse it will be - comparatively - for the UK economy. The obvious conclusion is that we should avoid a hard Brexit and give the most serious consideration to - for example - staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, extending EU membership, or other considerations.
You may decide that you would prefer a different conclusion and have strong reasons why we should suffer a hard Brexit, including reasons that - in your view - make up for the economic hardship that a hard Brexit would cause.
If you do, that's fine. Share your views as to why a hard Brexit is worth the demonstrable damage it will cause to the UK. But don't just reject a report simply because you think it's biased (and you think it's biased because it demonstrates that a hard Brexit should be avoided).
That said then basically what you're saying is the institutions from your list of "conspirators" remaining are those with access to the full data, facts and expertise as to whether Brexit will be beneficial or not? You can probably add the legal and law enforcement institutions to your list too. And those involved in ensuring our products and food are safe too. And the trade unions. And the medical profession. And so on...
On balance then, those with the most grasp of what it will mean in practise are very much against pursuing a policy that they view as detrimental to their area of expertise. Presented with this most overwhelming amount of expert evidence, from in some cases industries or institutions that might be on opposite sides of the table, the sensible, sane approach would be for the government to as a minimum pause to reflect on the decision. Instead we get Ministers standing in the House undermining the work, covering up the reality of what we are facing and riding roughshod over centuries of parliament process.
What a fecking place we've ended up in.
Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are very impressive metropolitan Labour leaders, but how much are they part of the 2018 strategic thinking within Labour? As others have stated, Labour is on a journey - its manifesto for the 2017 election is a sound starting point.
Varoufakis has stood on platforms with McDonnell and they share some views on the EU. I don't believe Labour is a shambles - it's in a great position to respond and evolve in 2018 whereas the Tories are split right down the middle.
Corbyn and McDonnell could easily align with the EU27 and the majority of the UK electorate, especially now that Barnier has a defined position and the economic forecasts re no deal etc. have been leaked.
It's all about timing and the UK has most of the year to resolve. Meanwhile Labour are working hard in the Lords in an attempt to ensure that Parliament has a proper say at the end of the process. Something else hard Brexiteers and Cabinet do not approve of!
In reality there are vanishing few models which survive contact with reality. This is because economies are organic changing things which respond to a myriad of events both at home and abroad. It would not be worth me listing the things which might happen to challenge the Treasury model-because there are too many and most of them will be unpredictable. However, one thing which might happen for example is that if we were to ever leave the EU (unlikely in my opinion) there were to be a rush of enthusiasm for starting new businesses (just as there was a spike in consumption after the referendum as happy Leavers went on a spending spree). This would change the model.
Or, if a UK government were to take back control of interest rate policy and push up rates to shake out British businesses and get rid of the 'zombies'. This too would change things in unmodelled ways.
Treasury models do not factor in changes of policy, international events, Euro crises or all the things we know might happen to change the equation. Some of these might be negative and make the British economy worse and some might make it outperfrom the EU. Nobody knows. Basing your view of whether Brexit is a good thing is fairly meaningless-and this approach was rejected in 2016 by a majority of voters whose good sense and scepticism is worhth more than the models of treasury mandarins with a political agenda.
A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound
economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded
by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow.
The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would
be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.
This was supposed to be the effect of a leave vote. Instead, as I noted before, there was an uptick in consumption which nobody saw coming and which was almost certainly down to happiness about the vote..
As for the other groups you mention, Bournemouth Addick has answered that perfectly. If they all believe remaining is the right thing to do, with inside knowledge and years of experience, maybe they are worth listening to rather than the small minority (by your definition) who don't?
You and your ilk will continue to ignore wave after wave of evidence that it isn't going to end well, of course, without actually saying anything more constructive than "nobody knows".
The 'wave after wave of evidence' is coming from people who never wanted to leave. It is going to be, with the best will in the world, biased towards the outcome they want. If you know anything about human nature you will know that to be true.
I am afraid that what many of the expert Remainers have in common is a distrust of democracy and of us, the electorate-we who are in the end the final guardians and guarantors of democracy.
The Brexit reports are like a scouting report of the opposition, so if Man Utd have great pace up front and big centre halves who come up for corners then any decent manager should make preparations to counter or mitigate.
If we ignore these warnings then Brexit is being managed by Karel Fraeye, "UK economy spread yourself out a bit".
If we act to counter/mitigate then just because we get a sneaky win does not mean that the original scouting report was wrong or should have been ignored.
Well I will go with you some of the way on this.
I agree that Labour could remove the massive fence post from its ignoble backside between now and the end of the year. It is in a position to do that but are there any sign they are going to?
Each time Corbyn is questioned he gives the opposite impression. He also maintains that a Norway style Brexit is not Brexit - tell that to millions of Norwegians.
Just today Labour in the HOL has decided not to back an amendment by Adonis for a referendum on the deal.
I think that the country is at a tipping point & that opinion is moving at least in the direction of a referendum. It needs leadership which is not being offered.
In the meantime Labour is losing members - OK they still have a load but perhaps they are coming away from their high point.
Finally given the utter shambles of the Tories at the moment they should be way ahead in the polls imho.