One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
That won’t happen Seth because all of the economic benefits of a Brexit are either “supposed” or “potential”.
For remainers like you and I it seems ludicrous to embark on such a path when all the “expert” opinion points towards our view of the economic outcome. For so many obviously intelligent people to be prepared to take on that huge risk leads some of us to believe there are other unspoken reasons for voting Brexit. However. We’ve been assured that isn’t the case.
Surely all the perceived benefits for 'remain' are also 'supposed' or 'potential' until they happen ... especially with the upheaval that Macron is committing to implement within the EU.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
That won’t happen Seth because all of the economic benefits of a Brexit are either “supposed” or “potential”.
For remainers like you and I it seems ludicrous to embark on such a path when all the “expert” opinion points towards our view of the economic outcome. For so many obviously intelligent people to be prepared to take on that huge risk leads some of us to believe there are other unspoken reasons for voting Brexit. However. We’ve been assured that isn’t the case.
Surely all the perceived benefits for 'remain' are also 'supposed' or 'potential' until they happen ... especially with the upheaval that Macron is committing to implement within the EU.
This type of answer is what I find so unbelievable about the leaver mentality.
This country has over the last forty years seen unprecedented growth and prosperity. Do you really think this is a coincidence that the period has been when the U.K. has been part of the European Union ?
The benefits of membership are not perceived they are are factually real.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
That won’t happen Seth because all of the economic benefits of a Brexit are either “supposed” or “potential”.
For remainers like you and I it seems ludicrous to embark on such a path when all the “expert” opinion points towards our view of the economic outcome. For so many obviously intelligent people to be prepared to take on that huge risk leads some of us to believe there are other unspoken reasons for voting Brexit. However. We’ve been assured that isn’t the case.
Surely all the perceived benefits for 'remain' are also 'supposed' or 'potential' until they happen ... especially with the upheaval that Macron is committing to implement within the EU.
This type of answer is what I find so unbelievable about the leaver mentality.
This country has over the last forty years seen unprecedented growth and prosperity. Do you really think this is a coincidence that the period has been when the U.K. has been part of the European Union ?
The benefits of membership are not perceived they are are factually real.
The question was asked about the financial benefits of leaving, not the advantages we have received thus far from being in the EU.
No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying - that is my point.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
We can agree that the future is unknown. Dreadful economic forecasts regarding leaving have been dismissed because they have not come to pass, Davis when talking about the impact assessments dismissed those as unreliable, maybe positive forecasts can be dismissed in the same way. So where else? The sovereignty and democracy agenda? The immigration agenda? The collaboration agenda? The physical proximity agenda? The security agenda? The political agenda? The philosophical agenda?
These are also factors in brexit. If they can't be forecast we are left with the practical day to day agenda. To a degree the 350 million a week spoke to the practical agenda, as does the latest stuff about food footwear and clothing which for me leads me back to the details. What will be the gain/loss equation and how will that impact peoples lives in practice? Or more particularly, as the UK is leaving in 13 months what changes in practice? What changes for the better?
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
We can agree that the future is unknown. Dreadful economic forecasts regarding leaving have been dismissed because they have not come to pass, Davis when talking about the impact assessments dismissed those as unreliable, maybe positive forecasts can be dismissed in the same way. So where else? The sovereignty and democracy agenda? The immigration agenda? The collaboration agenda? The physical proximity agenda? The security agenda? The political agenda? The philosophical agenda?
These are also factors in brexit. If they can't be forecast we are left with the practical day to day agenda. To a degree the 350 million a week spoke to the practical agenda, as does the latest stuff about food footwear and clothing which for me leads me back to the details. What will be the gain/loss equation and how will that impact peoples lives in practice? Or more particularly, as the UK is leaving in 13 months what changes in practice? What changes for the better?
You stated "brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me ... perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster."
I took the time to provide some thoughts from others besides myself - because I wanted to avoid, yet again, repeating my own arguments.
“Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin.”
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
We can agree that the future is unknown. Dreadful economic forecasts regarding leaving have been dismissed because they have not come to pass, Davis when talking about the impact assessments dismissed those as unreliable, maybe positive forecasts can be dismissed in the same way. So where else? The sovereignty and democracy agenda? The immigration agenda? The collaboration agenda? The physical proximity agenda? The security agenda? The political agenda? The philosophical agenda?
These are also factors in brexit. If they can't be forecast we are left with the practical day to day agenda. To a degree the 350 million a week spoke to the practical agenda, as does the latest stuff about food footwear and clothing which for me leads me back to the details. What will be the gain/loss equation and how will that impact peoples lives in practice? Or more particularly, as the UK is leaving in 13 months what changes in practice? What changes for the better?
You stated "brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me ... perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster."
I took the time to provide some thoughts from others besides myself - because I wanted to avoid, yet again, repeating my own arguments.
“Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin.”
You did. But heavily weighted to the financials, I also asked for examples of non financial benefits, but it is not entirely down to you alone to express them. For one example I see brexit as moving from more democracy to less. Am I missing something in that? Is there a benefit in scurrying back towards the monarchy/house of Lords/first past the post/disproportionate/local media controlled/permanent ruling class led form of government? I feel a bit less of a pleb as a European than as a UK subject.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
Skimmed through a lot of this (not just the blog but the either links as well) Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
There's the reveal. Brexit is a gambit by the wealthy, and a con upon the poor
Surely businesses would make huge profits if we rolled back regulations, allowed them to hire foreigners on subsistence wages, scrapped health and safety, employment rights and environmental laws etc.
Not exactly the kind of country I'd want to live in tbh.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The obvious conclusion then - however many times you repeat it - is that, instead of voting with knowledge as to the outcome, leavers were voting with simple, blind faith.
It would be good to hear the likely benefits (which exceed either the likely benefits of remaining; and the damage done by leaving) of leaving. Are there any financial - or other - benefits of leaving, other than "we can negotiate our own trade deals" (which, of course, equates to "we will have to negotiate our own trade deals; and we will have to hope they're not much worse for us than the ones from which we already benefit").
So really, the question still stands. What's the financial benefit of leaving? Or, is it just blind, ignorant hope and faith?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
Not at all - a giant eagle may fly by as you jump, you land on its back, and it will fly you away to safety. Or a truck may be passing with a safety net being transported to another location and you land upon that. Or a gale force wind carries you into a lake within a nearby park. Or ...... I guess you get the picture
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
Not at all - a giant eagle may fly by as you jump, you land on its back, and it will fly you away to safety. Or a truck may be passing with a safety net being transported to another location and you land upon that. Or a gale force wind carries you into a lake within a nearby park. Or ...... I guess you get the picture
Now I am beginning to understand the reason many normally sensible people voted Brexit......
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
At least a consensus is developing that the EU is dysfunctional. I guess the myth can be dropped that the EU can continue to operate effectively without reform.
One could argue the only issues to consider now is whether you believe the EU is able to reform itself, and if so, whether the outcome will be better than Brexit.
Instead of obsessing on the risks of Brexit, how about some balance. What are the risks of the EU not being reformed, and what is reform? What are the risks of the wrong reforms being put through?
For Macron I assume it is more integration and removal of the anachronisms of a political union without a financial union. Can Remain voters explain what are the economic effects of this on Europe, and why, if it is good, why those who suggest it will happen are called "scaremongers".
If reform is not economic integration, what are the reforms being alluded to and how would each of them improve UK GDP per capita compared to GDP per capita under Brexit? Or is voting Remain a leap in the dark.
Read an essay by a German think tank written in 2010 that chimes with the context of Macron's comments . It concluded that throughout Europe the majority of the people in most nations are negative about the EU, implying many would vote to leave. Ireland's first referendum on the new Treaty could be used to support this view. The reason the EU sticks together is because the politicians, apart from those of the UK, are positive on the EU.
If the EU cannot demonstrate how it is aligned with the interests of the citizens it cannot survive indefinitely. Given the disparate aspirations and interests of different citizens throughout the EU it will not, in my view, be attained. But Brexit could just be the wake up call. Otherwise the EU will simply make increasingly ineffective compromises that dilute it's raison d'être.
A two speed Europe is admission it has lost its way trying to apply a 20th century creation to a rapidly evolving 21st century world, but it could work and will have the UK to thank.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
Not at all - a giant eagle may fly by as you jump, you land on its back, and it will fly you away to safety. Or a truck may be passing with a safety net being transported to another location and you land upon that. Or a gale force wind carries you into a lake within a nearby park. Or ...... I guess you get the picture
Now I am beginning to understand the reason many normally sensible people voted Brexit......
I should have realised that trying to use humour with you was a fruitless task.
Someone else has explained it far better than I ever could:
"Specifically, the only kinds of "facts" we can assume about the future are tautologies: it's always going to be true that water = H20, it's never going to be true that triangles have 4 sides, it's never going to be true that T = F, etc. But these aren't predictions in the sense that you're asking for, they're just trivially true by definition."
Think I will stop there as this subject (future facts) is exhausted. Seth asked a question, I gave some feedback, the response was rubbished because it doesn't give the answer you want.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
Not at all - a giant eagle may fly by as you jump, you land on its back, and it will fly you away to safety. Or a truck may be passing with a safety net being transported to another location and you land upon that. Or a gale force wind carries you into a lake within a nearby park. Or ...... I guess you get the picture
Now I am beginning to understand the reason many normally sensible people voted Brexit......
I should have realised that trying to use humour with you was a fruitless task.
Someone else has explained it far better than I ever could:
"Specifically, the only kinds of "facts" we can assume about the future are tautologies: it's always going to be true that water = H20, it's never going to be true that triangles have 4 sides, it's never going to be true that T = F, etc. But these aren't predictions in the sense that you're asking for, they're just trivially true by definition."
Think I will stop there as this subject (future facts) is exhausted. Seth asked a question, I gave some feedback, the response was rubbished because it doesn't give the answer you want.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
At least a consensus is developing that the EU is dysfunctional. I guess the myth can be dropped that the EU can continue to operate effectively without reform.
One could argue the only issues to consider now is whether you believe the EU is able to reform itself, and if so, whether the outcome will be better than Brexit.
Instead of obsessing on the risks of Brexit, how about some balance. What are the risks of the EU not being reformed, and what is reform? What are the risks of the wrong reforms being put through?
For Macron I assume it is more integration and removal of the anachronisms of a political union without a financial union. Can Remain voters explain what are the economic effects of this on Europe, and why, if it is good, why those who suggest it will happen are called "scaremongers".
If reform is not economic integration, what are the reforms being alluded to and how would each of them improve UK GDP per capita compared to GDP per capita under Brexit? Or is voting Remain a leap in the dark.
Read an essay by a German think tank written in 2010 that chimes with the context of Macron's comments . It concluded that throughout Europe the majority of the people in most nations are negative about the EU, implying many would vote to leave. Ireland's first referendum on the new Treaty could be used to support this view. The reason the EU sticks together is because the politicians, apart from those of the UK, are positive on the EU.
If the EU cannot demonstrate how it is aligned with the interests of the citizens it cannot survive indefinitely. Given the disparate aspirations and interests of different citizens throughout the EU it will not, in my view, be attained. But Brexit could just be the wake up call. Otherwise the EU will simply make increasingly ineffective compromises that dilute it's raison d'être.
A two speed Europe is admission it has lost its way trying to apply a 20th century creation to a rapidly evolving 21st century world, but it could work and will have the UK to thank.
Macron, Merkel and many others admit the EU is a mess and needs reform quickly. In his book 'Révolution' and in his speech at the Sorbonne on 26 September 2017, Macron described the EU as suffering an existential crisis, unable to remedy its glaring policy failures and in danger of losing the support of its peoples. The EU, he says, is ‘too weak, too slow, too ineffective’.
What do the remainers want? Brexiters are continually being asked, what are you seeking?
Well, what are you, the remainers, seeking, based upon the fact that the EU is far from being usefully functional?
A paper I read recently put it succinctly: "What will the EU have become in five or ten years’ time? What exactly is it that remainers want to bind us to? They are fond of challenging supporters of Brexit to predict the future. Let them take up the challenge themselves. Do they want Britain to adopt the Euro and cede democratic powers to Macron’s ‘Sovereign Europe’? Or would they be happy to keep Britain in an outer circle, as a follower of decisions made by others to determine our prosperity, social cohesion and security? Or would they try to block reform, and let the EU gradually disintegrate? Or don’t they know what they want? One of the most striking features of the long and wearisome debate we have been gripped with is how rarely it has been about Europe, and how little Remainers seem to know about the institution they are so desperate to cling on to."
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
Not at all - a giant eagle may fly by as you jump, you land on its back, and it will fly you away to safety. Or a truck may be passing with a safety net being transported to another location and you land upon that. Or a gale force wind carries you into a lake within a nearby park. Or ...... I guess you get the picture
Now I am beginning to understand the reason many normally sensible people voted Brexit......
I should have realised that trying to use humour with you was a fruitless task.
Someone else has explained it far better than I ever could:
"Specifically, the only kinds of "facts" we can assume about the future are tautologies: it's always going to be true that water = H20, it's never going to be true that triangles have 4 sides, it's never going to be true that T = F, etc. But these aren't predictions in the sense that you're asking for, they're just trivially true by definition."
Think I will stop there as this subject (future facts) is exhausted. Seth asked a question, I gave some feedback, the response was rubbished because it doesn't give the answer you want.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
I have not rubbished your contributions.
Aplogies @seth plum , I should have made that clear. You most certainly have not.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
Yes put a massive rope around the whole island and drag it out to the mid atlantic. And forget about it. Well you did ask. When i get paid to sort it i will.
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.
Comments
This country has over the last forty years seen unprecedented growth and prosperity. Do you really think this is a coincidence that the period has been when the U.K. has been part of the European Union ?
The benefits of membership are not perceived they are are factually real.
No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying - that is my point.
Dreadful economic forecasts regarding leaving have been dismissed because they have not come to pass, Davis when talking about the impact assessments dismissed those as unreliable, maybe positive forecasts can be dismissed in the same way.
So where else?
The sovereignty and democracy agenda?
The immigration agenda?
The collaboration agenda?
The physical proximity agenda?
The security agenda?
The political agenda?
The philosophical agenda?
These are also factors in brexit. If they can't be forecast we are left with the practical day to day agenda. To a degree the 350 million a week spoke to the practical agenda, as does the latest stuff about food footwear and clothing which for me leads me back to the details.
What will be the gain/loss equation and how will that impact peoples lives in practice? Or more particularly, as the UK is leaving in 13 months what changes in practice? What changes for the better?
I took the time to provide some thoughts from others besides myself - because I wanted to avoid, yet again, repeating my own arguments.
“Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin.”
For one example I see brexit as moving from more democracy to less. Am I missing something in that? Is there a benefit in scurrying back towards the monarchy/house of Lords/first past the post/disproportionate/local media controlled/permanent ruling class led form of government?
I feel a bit less of a pleb as a European than as a UK subject.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Not exactly the kind of country I'd want to live in tbh.
Oh, and Liam Fox.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states:
"The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past.
We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
It would be good to hear the likely benefits (which exceed either the likely benefits of remaining; and the damage done by leaving) of leaving. Are there any financial - or other - benefits of leaving, other than "we can negotiate our own trade deals" (which, of course, equates to "we will have to negotiate our own trade deals; and we will have to hope they're not much worse for us than the ones from which we already benefit").
So really, the question still stands. What's the financial benefit of leaving? Or, is it just blind, ignorant hope and faith?
One could argue the only issues to consider now is whether you believe the EU is able to reform itself, and if so, whether the outcome will be better than Brexit.
Instead of obsessing on the risks of Brexit, how about some balance. What are the risks of the EU not being reformed, and what is reform? What are the risks of the wrong reforms being put through?
For Macron I assume it is more integration and removal of the anachronisms of a political union without a financial union. Can Remain voters explain what are the economic effects of this on Europe, and why, if it is good, why those who suggest it will happen are called "scaremongers".
If reform is not economic integration, what are the reforms being alluded to and how would each of them improve UK GDP per capita compared to GDP per capita under Brexit? Or is voting Remain a leap in the dark.
Read an essay by a German think tank written in 2010 that chimes with the context of Macron's comments . It concluded that throughout Europe the majority of the people in most nations are negative about the EU, implying many would vote to leave. Ireland's first referendum on the new Treaty could be used to support this view. The reason the EU sticks together is because the politicians, apart from those of the UK, are positive on the EU.
If the EU cannot demonstrate how it is aligned with the interests of the citizens it cannot survive indefinitely. Given the disparate aspirations and interests of different citizens throughout the EU it will not, in my view, be attained. But Brexit could just be the wake up call. Otherwise the EU will simply make increasingly ineffective compromises that dilute it's raison d'être.
A two speed Europe is admission it has lost its way trying to apply a 20th century creation to a rapidly evolving 21st century world, but it could work and will have the UK to thank.
Someone else has explained it far better than I ever could:
"Specifically, the only kinds of "facts" we can assume about the future are tautologies: it's always going to be true that water = H20, it's never going to be true that triangles have 4 sides, it's never going to be true that T = F, etc. But these aren't predictions in the sense that you're asking for, they're just trivially true by definition."
Think I will stop there as this subject (future facts) is exhausted. Seth asked a question, I gave some feedback, the response was rubbished because it doesn't give the answer you want.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
What do the remainers want? Brexiters are continually being asked, what are you seeking?
Well, what are you, the remainers, seeking, based upon the fact that the EU is far from being usefully functional?
A paper I read recently put it succinctly: "What will the EU have become in five or ten years’ time? What exactly is it that remainers want to bind us to? They are fond of challenging supporters of Brexit to predict the future. Let them take up the challenge themselves. Do they want Britain to adopt the Euro and cede democratic powers to Macron’s ‘Sovereign Europe’? Or would they be happy to keep Britain in an outer circle, as a follower of decisions made by others to determine our prosperity, social cohesion and security? Or would they try to block reform, and let the EU gradually disintegrate? Or don’t they know what they want? One of the most striking features of the long and wearisome debate we have been gripped with is how rarely it has been about Europe, and how little Remainers seem to know about the institution they are so desperate to cling on to."
Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen.
The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel.
I know you secretly want me to ask you this,
have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet?
:-)
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.