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.
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).
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.
I'll give it one more go. The models are based on what we know. And they show that, the harder the Brexit, the worse it will be for the economy.
If you want to reject the model, don't reject it on the basis that it was created by people who don't support us leaving the EU. (It was, of course, commissioned by DexEU, the very department set up do ensure that, not only do we leave the EU, but we leave with the best possible deal for the economy).
You can still support the idea of leaving despite the fact that it will be worse for the economy than remaining. You can still support the idea for a hard Brexit despite it being worse for the economy than a soft Brexit.
But if you do, it's reasonable to be asked what advantages you think we will gain that outweigh the fact that - apart from a tiny minority of people, like Jacob Rees Mogg - we will all be worse off than if we stay. There must be something we will gain that's worth the economic hit. What is it, in your opinion?
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.
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.
Interesting but, I might argue, wrong (but I'd only do such a thing because I believe it to be fundamentally bonkers).
I'm not an expert, but I think that what is happening is that experts are seeking to minimise the risks, for their areas of expertise, associated with the vote to leave the EU (even to the extent of wishing to remain, though I am not sure that that is necessarilty what they want).
Where there are close and efficient, intertwined even, working relationships, as a result of EU membership, that benefit the UK (such as in finance, medicine, aerospace, etc.), those working in such sectors would be absolutely remiss if they failed to fight their corners and seek to retain as much as possible of the current benefits.
Just because Civil Servants, for example, put together a model of the most likely potential economic impacts that suggests that the UK will have reduced growth as a result of Brexit, this does not mean that they are attempting to stop Brexit.
They are obliged to provide free and frank advice to their political masters, but they do not set the political agenda. The Government has made clear its (in my opinion contradictory) agenda for Brexit, and Civil Servants are seeking to implement it. But it would be wrong if they did not seek to highlight potential, possible or even probable outcomes - it is, after all, their job.
There is nothing to suggest that any experts distrust democracy. It is, after all, philosophically a lovely idea. I'd be inclined to suggest, however that it is not unreasonable to be cynical about the outworkings of the various forms of democracy available to the average voter.
Of course, they may distrust the electorate, but that is just to recognise that people are human, subject to the same frailties and failings as themselves, and that historically "the people" have managed to enthusiastically support some of the most appalling episodes in human history, without any seeming inclination to act as the final guardians and guarantors of democracy (and, in the Common Law system, or any system wherein there is a real separation of powers, "the people" are only one of the guarantors of democracy).
"But if you do, it's reasonable to be asked what advantages you think we will gain that outweigh the fact that - apart from a tiny minority of people, like Jacob Rees Mogg - we will all be worse off than if we stay. There must be something we will gain that's worth the economic hit. What is it, in your opinion? "
I think you are missing my point. There is no way of knowing whether we will be worse off if we stay or go-as the economy does not work like a piece of clockwork and is , in the end, the sum product of what millions of people decide to do individually and collectively and which is in a constant state of flux.
What we will gain, were we ever to properly leave, would be the ability to elect and then unelect governments which would have sole control of our political and economic affairs. Brexit in name only ( aka soft Brexit) will not settle this matter, and is a guarantee of ongoing political and probably economic instability (although obviously I canniot predict the latter). It would be the worst of all worlds, giving us neither political or economic sovereignty.
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
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.
Interesting but, I might argue, wrong (but I'd only do such a thing because I believe it to be fundamentally bonkers).
I'm not an expert, but I think that what is happening is that experts are seeking to minimise the risks, for their areas of expertise, associated with the vote to leave the EU (even to the extent of wishing to to remain, though I am not sure that that is necessarilty what they want).
Where there are close and efficient, intertwined even, working relationships, as a result of EU membership, that benefit the UK (such as in finance, medicine, aerospace, etc.), those working in such sectors would be absolutely remiss if they failed to fight their corners and seek to retain as much as possible of the current benefits.
Just because Civil Servants, for example, put together a model of the most likely potential economic impacts that suggests that the UK will have reduced growth as a result of Brexit, this does not mean that they are attempting to stop Brexit.
They are obliged to provide free and frank advice to their political masters, but they do not set the political agenda. The Government has made clear its (in my opinion contradictory) agenda for Brexit, and Civil Servants are seeking to implement it. But it would be wrong if they did not seek to highlight potential, possible or even probable outcomes - it is, after all, their job.
There is nothing to suggest that any experts distrust democracy. It is, after all, philosophically a lovely idea. I'd be inclined to suggest, however that it is not unreasonable to be cynical about the outworkings of the various forms of democracy available to the average voter.
Of course, they may distrust the electorate, but that is just to recognise that people are human, subject to the same frailties and failings as themselves, and that historically "the people" have managed to enthusiastically support some of the most appalling episodes in human history, without any seeming inclination to act as the final guardians and guarntors of democracy (and, in the Common Law system, or any system wherein there is a real separation of powers, "the people" are only one of the guarantors of democracy).
As for civil servants not setting the political agenda-according to the press today the 'economic impact' document was deliberately leaked this week by the civil service to do exactly that.
I have no objection to people fighting to save their vested interests, of course they will do that-and that is why we must distrust what they say, or at least understand what their bias will be.
In the 100th anniversary of some women finally getting the vote, we should all reflect that were it not for the struggles of the Suffragettes and before them the Chartists most of us would have as much say in our political system as the average North Korean. It is only the willingness of ordinary people to stand up for themselves that enables any kind of democracy, even a flawed one like our own, to continue to exist. That is why the referendum result has to be defended.
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
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.
Yes - I can agree with that. However I also think that most people in senior positions are capable of sizing up both sides of a situation, and try and allow their bias not to be too great when acting on the evidence. Rees-Mogg the exception that proves the rule, obviously . It isn't just 52% of people; you said yourself that it is a large majority that are pointing out the folly of leaving the EU, just because they were in favour of remaining (and none of us have much real evidence of which way they voted, you have made some assumptions, but you don't actually know), does not make that untrue.
If it were 60/40 I would say that you could argue that bias has swung it. But it's not Southbank, it's approaching 90%, I would say, that have looked at their particular field and seen the problems Brexit will bring.
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Wish i had a £1 for every time the words EXPERT and EVIDENCE is used and we haven't left yet, i would be able to retire early. My favourite though is MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE.
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Come on, you aren't that silly.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
From the Guido Fawkes website for all who trust Treasury predictions:
'The new Treasury-led Brexit forecasts have to be read in the context of their record at predicting what would happen in the immediate aftermath of a Leave vote.
The HMT prediction for GDP 3 months after the referendum was that “the UK economy would fall into recession” and contract up to -1%. It grew +0.5% in this period.
The Treasury told us: “The analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into a recession, with four quarters of negative growth.” The reality has been positive growth every single quarter since.
HMT forecast that in the two years following a Leave vote GDP would fall between -3% and -6%. GDP grew by 1.9% in 2016 and 1.8% in 2017, with better than expected growth in the final quarter. There is now no recession forecast.
On unemployment, they infamously said it would rise by between 500,000 and 820,000 in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Unemployment fell again last week to a four-decade low.
And the Treasury said government borrowing would rise by up to £39 billion immediately after the vote. Instead borrowing for the financial year to date is down 12% on the same period last year. That’s the lowest year-to-date total since 2007.
Why would anyone believe the people who predicted this nonsense ever again?'
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.
Interesting but, I might argue, wrong (but I'd only do such a thing because I believe it to be fundamentally bonkers).
I'm not an expert, but I think that what is happening is that experts are seeking to minimise the risks, for their areas of expertise, associated with the vote to leave the EU (even to the extent of wishing to to remain, though I am not sure that that is necessarilty what they want).
Where there are close and efficient, intertwined even, working relationships, as a result of EU membership, that benefit the UK (such as in finance, medicine, aerospace, etc.), those working in such sectors would be absolutely remiss if they failed to fight their corners and seek to retain as much as possible of the current benefits.
Just because Civil Servants, for example, put together a model of the most likely potential economic impacts that suggests that the UK will have reduced growth as a result of Brexit, this does not mean that they are attempting to stop Brexit.
They are obliged to provide free and frank advice to their political masters, but they do not set the political agenda. The Government has made clear its (in my opinion contradictory) agenda for Brexit, and Civil Servants are seeking to implement it. But it would be wrong if they did not seek to highlight potential, possible or even probable outcomes - it is, after all, their job.
There is nothing to suggest that any experts distrust democracy. It is, after all, philosophically a lovely idea. I'd be inclined to suggest, however that it is not unreasonable to be cynical about the outworkings of the various forms of democracy available to the average voter.
Of course, they may distrust the electorate, but that is just to recognise that people are human, subject to the same frailties and failings as themselves, and that historically "the people" have managed to enthusiastically support some of the most appalling episodes in human history, without any seeming inclination to act as the final guardians and guarntors of democracy (and, in the Common Law system, or any system wherein there is a real separation of powers, "the people" are only one of the guarantors of democracy).
As for civil servants not setting the political agenda-according to the press today the 'economic impact' document was deliberately leaked this week by the civil service to do exactly that.
I have no objection to people fighting to save their vested interests, of course they will do that-and that is why we must distrust what they say, or at least understand what their bias will be.
In the 100th anniversary of some women finally getting the vote, we should all reflect that were it not for the struggles of the Suffragettes and before them the Chartists most of us would have as much say in our political system as the average North Korean. It is only the willingness of ordinary people to stand up for themselves that enables any kind of democracy, even a flawed one like our own, to continue to exist. That is why the referendum result has to be defended.
It was only ever advisory, never binding. And as for UK democracy, as you point out, it's (vastly) flawed...
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Come on, you aren't that silly.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
The argument is over how we leave now.
This was not a general election where the will of the people is expressed via our particular version of a parliamentary democracy. This was a straightforward Referendum. Leave won by a small margin. But 37% of the electorate cannot be interpreted as the 'will of the people'. It is simple maths. An incontrovertible fact. Brexit is the will of a minority of the people. Only Donald Trump could try and argue otherwise.
From the Guido Fawkes website for all who trust Treasury predictions:
'The new Treasury-led Brexit forecasts have to be read in the context of their record at predicting what would happen in the immediate aftermath of a Leave vote.
The HMT prediction for GDP 3 months after the referendum was that “the UK economy would fall into recession” and contract up to -1%. It grew +0.5% in this period.
The Treasury told us: “The analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into a recession, with four quarters of negative growth.” The reality has been positive growth every single quarter since.
HMT forecast that in the two years following a Leave vote GDP would fall between -3% and -6%. GDP grew by 1.9% in 2016 and 1.8% in 2017, with better than expected growth in the final quarter. There is now no recession forecast.
On unemployment, they infamously said it would rise by between 500,000 and 820,000 in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Unemployment fell again last week to a four-decade low.
And the Treasury said government borrowing would rise by up to £39 billion immediately after the vote. Instead borrowing for the financial year to date is down 12% on the same period last year. That’s the lowest year-to-date total since 2007.
Why would anyone believe the people who predicted this nonsense ever again?'
So, the many people forecasting problems post Brexit are biased. But then you quote from the Guido Fawkes website to support your argument???????????????????????????????????????
Okay, right...
I think we've found a level. I'll leave it there for now. Probably pop back on in a few weeks when news of the the next bit of avoidable misery is published.
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Come on, you aren't that silly.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
The argument is over how we leave now.
This was not a general election where the will of the people is expressed via our particular version of a parliamentary democracy. This was a straightforward Referendum. Leave won by a small margin. But 37% of the electorate cannot be interpreted as the 'will of the people'. It is simple maths. An incontrovertible fact. Brexit is the will of a minority of the people. Only Donald Trump could try and argue otherwise.
But staying in the EU is, by your argument, the will of an even smaller minority of the people.
I would also argue that the "will of the people" is better expressed in single topic referendum than a general election as you are voting for a specific outcome, not a political party who have a range of policies on a spectrum of topics.
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Come on, you aren't that silly.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
The argument is over how we leave now.
This was not a general election where the will of the people is expressed via our particular version of a parliamentary democracy. This was a straightforward Referendum. Leave won by a small margin. But 37% of the electorate cannot be interpreted as the 'will of the people'. It is simple maths. An incontrovertible fact. Brexit is the will of a minority of the people. Only Donald Trump could try and argue otherwise.
But staying in the EU is, by your argument, the will of an even smaller minority of the people.
I would also argue that the "will of the people" is better expressed in single topic referendum than a general election as you are voting for a specific outcome, not a political party who have a range of policies on a spectrum of topics.
I agree. It is an incontrovertible fact that a smaller minority of the people voted Remain. A minority of the people voted to leave and a smaller minority voted to remain. These are simple facts.
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Come on, you aren't that silly.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
The argument is over how we leave now.
This was not a general election where the will of the people is expressed via our particular version of a parliamentary democracy. This was a straightforward Referendum. Leave won by a small margin. But 37% of the electorate cannot be interpreted as the 'will of the people'. It is simple maths. An incontrovertible fact. Brexit is the will of a minority of the people. Only Donald Trump could try and argue otherwise.
But staying in the EU is, by your argument, the will of an even smaller minority of the people.
I would also argue that the "will of the people" is better expressed in single topic referendum than a general election as you are voting for a specific outcome, not a political party who have a range of policies on a spectrum of topics.
I agree. It is an incontrovertible fact that a smaller minority of the people voted Remain. A minority of the people voted to leave and a smaller minority voted to remain. These are simple facts.
So...the will of the people as to whether we should remain or leave the EU wasn't expressed by a referendum asking the people whether we should stay or leave the EU?
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
I checked the Treasury figures in that blog-suggest you do too
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.
The majority of the people who voted, yes.....but not the majority of the people. Therefore the claim that the Leave vote is the 'will of the people' is nonsense. The Leave vote needed 51% of those eligible to vote for the 'will of the people' claim to have any legitimacy.
Come on, you aren't that silly.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
The argument is over how we leave now.
This was not a general election where the will of the people is expressed via our particular version of a parliamentary democracy. This was a straightforward Referendum. Leave won by a small margin. But 37% of the electorate cannot be interpreted as the 'will of the people'. It is simple maths. An incontrovertible fact. Brexit is the will of a minority of the people. Only Donald Trump could try and argue otherwise.
And by your logic, the fact that 43% voted Remain in 1975 means what exactly?
"I refuse to believe people who are experts in their field because they are all biased. So instead I'll believe an alt-right blogger for unbiased accurate information."
I checked the Treasury figures in that blog-suggest you do too
Don't suppose you've got anything handy from the Daily Express?
"But if you do, it's reasonable to be asked what advantages you think we will gain that outweigh the fact that - apart from a tiny minority of people, like Jacob Rees Mogg - we will all be worse off than if we stay. There must be something we will gain that's worth the economic hit. What is it, in your opinion? "
I think you are missing my point. There is no way of knowing whether we will be worse off if we stay or go-as the economy does not work like a piece of clockwork and is , in the end, the sum product of what millions of people decide to do individually and collectively and which is in a constant state of flux.
What we will gain, were we ever to properly leave, would be the ability to elect and then unelect governments which would have sole control of our political and economic affairs. Brexit in name only ( aka soft Brexit) will not settle this matter, and is a guarantee of ongoing political and probably economic instability (although obviously I canniot predict the latter). It would be the worst of all worlds, giving us neither political or economic sovereignty.
You're suggesting that we don't currently have the ability to elect and then unelect governments which have sole control of our political and economic affairs?
And you're suggesting that to "regain" that ability would be worth the price of making the country less wealthy than it would have been had we stayed in the EU?
"But if you do, it's reasonable to be asked what advantages you think we will gain that outweigh the fact that - apart from a tiny minority of people, like Jacob Rees Mogg - we will all be worse off than if we stay. There must be something we will gain that's worth the economic hit. What is it, in your opinion? "
I think you are missing my point. There is no way of knowing whether we will be worse off if we stay or go-as the economy does not work like a piece of clockwork and is , in the end, the sum product of what millions of people decide to do individually and collectively and which is in a constant state of flux.
What we will gain, were we ever to properly leave, would be the ability to elect and then unelect governments which would have sole control of our political and economic affairs. Brexit in name only ( aka soft Brexit) will not settle this matter, and is a guarantee of ongoing political and probably economic instability (although obviously I canniot predict the latter). It would be the worst of all worlds, giving us neither political or economic sovereignty.
You're suggesting that we don't currently have the ability to elect and then unelect governments which have sole control of our political and economic affairs?
And you're suggesting that to "regain" that ability would be worth the price of making the country less wealthy than it would have been had we stayed in the EU? Regain control by letting May have sole say on which of our EU laws will be kept and which ditched? Surely the Tories should have informed us before the vote?
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.
Interesting but, I might argue, wrong (but I'd only do such a thing because I believe it to be fundamentally bonkers).
I'm not an expert, but I think that what is happening is that experts are seeking to minimise the risks, for their areas of expertise, associated with the vote to leave the EU (even to the extent of wishing to to remain, though I am not sure that that is necessarilty what they want).
Where there are close and efficient, intertwined even, working relationships, as a result of EU membership, that benefit the UK (such as in finance, medicine, aerospace, etc.), those working in such sectors would be absolutely remiss if they failed to fight their corners and seek to retain as much as possible of the current benefits.
Just because Civil Servants, for example, put together a model of the most likely potential economic impacts that suggests that the UK will have reduced growth as a result of Brexit, this does not mean that they are attempting to stop Brexit.
They are obliged to provide free and frank advice to their political masters, but they do not set the political agenda. The Government has made clear its (in my opinion contradictory) agenda for Brexit, and Civil Servants are seeking to implement it. But it would be wrong if they did not seek to highlight potential, possible or even probable outcomes - it is, after all, their job.
There is nothing to suggest that any experts distrust democracy. It is, after all, philosophically a lovely idea. I'd be inclined to suggest, however that it is not unreasonable to be cynical about the outworkings of the various forms of democracy available to the average voter.
Of course, they may distrust the electorate, but that is just to recognise that people are human, subject to the same frailties and failings as themselves, and that historically "the people" have managed to enthusiastically support some of the most appalling episodes in human history, without any seeming inclination to act as the final guardians and guarntors of democracy (and, in the Common Law system, or any system wherein there is a real separation of powers, "the people" are only one of the guarantors of democracy).
As for civil servants not setting the political agenda-according to the press today the 'economic impact' document was deliberately leaked this week by the civil service to do exactly that.
I have no objection to people fighting to save their vested interests, of course they will do that-and that is why we must distrust what they say, or at least understand what their bias will be.
In the 100th anniversary of some women finally getting the vote, we should all reflect that were it not for the struggles of the Suffragettes and before them the Chartists most of us would have as much say in our political system as the average North Korean. It is only the willingness of ordinary people to stand up for themselves that enables any kind of democracy, even a flawed one like our own, to continue to exist. That is why the referendum result has to be defended.
I'd just like to point out that 1) the document was not leaked by the Civil Service, because I'm occasionally pedantic (it is possible that it may have been leaked by a Civil Servant, or a SpAd, or even an MP); and 2) the press, in general, has no more idea about the reasons for the leaking than you or I, and their allegations today may or may not represent an attempt to set the political agenda. It could even be a subtle ploy by D Davis (after all, is he not justly renowned for subtlety, sophistication and intellectual rigour in all that he does?) to deflect criticism from himself.
I agree with you about the struggles of the Suffragettes and others that have changed the course of political history in the UK, but the people who brought about peaceful political change almost never represented the majority and what was believed to be will of the people, and they agitated consistently to have the accepted will of the people overturned, and I'm pleased that you admire their struggles (the referendum result represents a snapshot in political time, in exactly the same way as any other popular vote, no decision binds a polity in perpetuity - it is entirely legitimate for those opposed to what others may consider the accepted will of the people to struggle to overturn the referendum result, because that's democracy in action). Those arguing against Brexit itself, rather than about the flavour of Brexot, are in the minority. Their views are not popular and, like Wilberforce or Pankhurst, only the passage of time, and their ability to change opinions, will show whether they were right to follow their convictions.
I'm pro-EU, against Brexit because I believe it will create unnecessary problems for all of us (especially over here), and I would happily see it stopped - I don't believe that it will be, but that's life....
... it is entirely legitimate for those opposed to what others may consider the accepted will of the people to struggle to overturn the referendum result, because that's democracy in action.
Absolutely, could not agree more. i would do the same had the result gone the other way. A basic democratic right.
Those arguing against Brexit itself, rather than about the flavour of Brexot, are in the minority.
Not so sure it is a minority. To be honest, if Brexit continues in the current diluted format, I am also against it for the simple reason we will definitely be worse off.
Comments
If you want to reject the model, don't reject it on the basis that it was created by people who don't support us leaving the EU. (It was, of course, commissioned by DexEU, the very department set up do ensure that, not only do we leave the EU, but we leave with the best possible deal for the economy).
You can still support the idea of leaving despite the fact that it will be worse for the economy than remaining. You can still support the idea for a hard Brexit despite it being worse for the economy than a soft Brexit.
But if you do, it's reasonable to be asked what advantages you think we will gain that outweigh the fact that - apart from a tiny minority of people, like Jacob Rees Mogg - we will all be worse off than if we stay. There must be something we will gain that's worth the economic hit. What is it, in your opinion?
I'm not an expert, but I think that what is happening is that experts are seeking to minimise the risks, for their areas of expertise, associated with the vote to leave the EU (even to the extent of wishing to remain, though I am not sure that that is necessarilty what they want).
Where there are close and efficient, intertwined even, working relationships, as a result of EU membership, that benefit the UK (such as in finance, medicine, aerospace, etc.), those working in such sectors would be absolutely remiss if they failed to fight their corners and seek to retain as much as possible of the current benefits.
Just because Civil Servants, for example, put together a model of the most likely potential economic impacts that suggests that the UK will have reduced growth as a result of Brexit, this does not mean that they are attempting to stop Brexit.
They are obliged to provide free and frank advice to their political masters, but they do not set the political agenda. The Government has made clear its (in my opinion contradictory) agenda for Brexit, and Civil Servants are seeking to implement it. But it would be wrong if they did not seek to highlight potential, possible or even probable outcomes - it is, after all, their job.
There is nothing to suggest that any experts distrust democracy. It is, after all, philosophically a lovely idea. I'd be inclined to suggest, however that it is not unreasonable to be cynical about the outworkings of the various forms of democracy available to the average voter.
Of course, they may distrust the electorate, but that is just to recognise that people are human, subject to the same frailties and failings as themselves, and that historically "the people" have managed to enthusiastically support some of the most appalling episodes in human history, without any seeming inclination to act as the final guardians and guarantors of democracy (and, in the Common Law system, or any system wherein there is a real separation of powers, "the people" are only one of the guarantors of democracy).
I think you are missing my point. There is no way of knowing whether we will be worse off if we stay or go-as the economy does not work like a piece of clockwork and is , in the end, the sum product of what millions of people decide to do individually and collectively and which is in a constant state of flux.
What we will gain, were we ever to properly leave, would be the ability to elect and then unelect governments which would have sole control of our political and economic affairs. Brexit in name only ( aka soft Brexit) will not settle this matter, and is a guarantee of ongoing political and probably economic instability (although obviously I canniot predict the latter). It would be the worst of all worlds, giving us neither political or economic sovereignty.
I have no objection to people fighting to save their vested interests, of course they will do that-and that is why we must distrust what they say, or at least understand what their bias will be.
In the 100th anniversary of some women finally getting the vote, we should all reflect that were it not for the struggles of the Suffragettes and before them the Chartists most of us would have as much say in our political system as the average North Korean. It is only the willingness of ordinary people to stand up for themselves that enables any kind of democracy, even a flawed one like our own, to continue to exist. That is why the referendum result has to be defended.
If it were 60/40 I would say that you could argue that bias has swung it. But it's not Southbank, it's approaching 90%, I would say, that have looked at their particular field and seen the problems Brexit will bring.
There was a vote which is how the will of the people is exoressed, leave won - it's absolutely accurate to say that leaving the EU is the democratic will of the people.
The argument is over how we leave now.
'The new Treasury-led Brexit forecasts have to be read in the context of their record at predicting what would happen in the immediate aftermath of a Leave vote.
The HMT prediction for GDP 3 months after the referendum was that “the UK economy would fall into recession” and contract up to -1%. It grew +0.5% in this period.
The Treasury told us: “The analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into a recession, with four quarters of negative growth.” The reality has been positive growth every single quarter since.
HMT forecast that in the two years following a Leave vote GDP would fall between -3% and -6%. GDP grew by 1.9% in 2016 and 1.8% in 2017, with better than expected growth in the final quarter. There is now no recession forecast.
On unemployment, they infamously said it would rise by between 500,000 and 820,000 in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Unemployment fell again last week to a four-decade low.
And the Treasury said government borrowing would rise by up to £39 billion immediately after the vote. Instead borrowing for the financial year to date is down 12% on the same period last year. That’s the lowest year-to-date total since 2007.
Why would anyone believe the people who predicted this nonsense ever again?'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/why-some-votes-can-count-30-times-as-much-as-others-and-how-to-check-how-powerful-yours-is-10189024.html
Okay, right...
I think we've found a level. I'll leave it there for now. Probably pop back on in a few weeks when news of the the next bit of avoidable misery is published.
I would also argue that the "will of the people" is better expressed in single topic referendum than a general election as you are voting for a specific outcome, not a political party who have a range of policies on a spectrum of topics.
I think you are missing my point. There is no way of knowing whether we will be worse off if we stay or go-as the economy does not work like a piece of clockwork and is , in the end, the sum product of what millions of people decide to do individually and collectively and which is in a constant state of flux.
What we will gain, were we ever to properly leave, would be the ability to elect and then unelect governments which would have sole control of our political and economic affairs. Brexit in name only ( aka soft Brexit) will not settle this matter, and is a guarantee of ongoing political and probably economic instability (although obviously I canniot predict the latter). It would be the worst of all worlds, giving us neither political or economic sovereignty.
You're suggesting that we don't currently have the ability to elect and then unelect governments which have sole control of our political and economic affairs?
And you're suggesting that to "regain" that ability would be worth the price of making the country less wealthy than it would have been had we stayed in the EU?
What we will gain, were we ever to properly leave, would be the ability to elect and then unelect governments which would have sole control of our political and economic affairs. Brexit in name only ( aka soft Brexit) will not settle this matter, and is a guarantee of ongoing political and probably economic instability (although obviously I canniot predict the latter). It would be the worst of all worlds, giving us neither political or economic sovereignty.
You're suggesting that we don't currently have the ability to elect and then unelect governments which have sole control of our political and economic affairs?
And you're suggesting that to "regain" that ability would be worth the price of making the country less wealthy than it would have been had we stayed in the EU?
Regain control by letting May have sole say on which of our EU laws will be kept and which ditched? Surely the Tories should have informed us before the vote?
I agree with you about the struggles of the Suffragettes and others that have changed the course of political history in the UK, but the people who brought about peaceful political change almost never represented the majority and what was believed to be will of the people, and they agitated consistently to have the accepted will of the people overturned, and I'm pleased that you admire their struggles (the referendum result represents a snapshot in political time, in exactly the same way as any other popular vote, no decision binds a polity in perpetuity - it is entirely legitimate for those opposed to what others may consider the accepted will of the people to struggle to overturn the referendum result, because that's democracy in action). Those arguing against Brexit itself, rather than about the flavour of Brexot, are in the minority. Their views are not popular and, like Wilberforce or Pankhurst, only the passage of time, and their ability to change opinions, will show whether they were right to follow their convictions.
I'm pro-EU, against Brexit because I believe it will create unnecessary problems for all of us (especially over here), and I would happily see it stopped - I don't believe that it will be, but that's life....
... it is entirely legitimate for those opposed to what others may consider the accepted will of the people to struggle to overturn the referendum result, because that's democracy in action.
Absolutely, could not agree more. i would do the same had the result gone the other way. A basic democratic right.
Those arguing against Brexit itself, rather than about the flavour of Brexot, are in the minority.
Not so sure it is a minority. To be honest, if Brexit continues in the current diluted format, I am also against it for the simple reason we will definitely be worse off.