[petejh]

"some turbulence" is a breathtaking euphemism for blighting people's whole lives.
As far as I can tell this "turbulence" is likely to be a decade atl east of constant financial crisis coming straight on top of the 8 years of financial crisis we've already been put through.

'Constant financial crisis'??

Are these predictions of financial doom based on anything other than your own filter bubbles?

No need to answer that. But a simple check and you'll see we aren't in a recession. In 2008-11 we were.

Nor is one forecast, since the various economic forecasters changed their previous pre-referendum doom-laden forecasts to more optimistic ones post-referendum. For e.g. the IMF have 'U-turned' since before the referendum and are now predicting the UK to have the fastest growing economy of any of the major G7 economies in 2016. How is that even possible based on what everyone was predicting just a few months ago?
Of course everything's relative, no-one is growing as fast as they have in other periods of strong growth.

Fastest growing major (G7) economy in 2016 doesn't tally with us being 'in constant financial crisis' - maybe you meant you are personally? And maybe you're sore about the referendum result. But don't let your own personal bias colour predictions of doom that aren't based in reality and are against objective facts - surely that was one of the accusations (correctly) made against the more extreme brexit-campaigners.

Other viewpoints/opinions are available if you look outside your own facebook/twitter feeds.

[Fultonius]

Pete, just searching online for "UK financial outlook"  brings up a few sources,  from PwC, FT, oecd.org etc. I would not argue that growth is dire,  but it's not he only indicator.

I'm no finance expert/economist but the OECD report seems to point to the boost of growth being at the expense of higher and quite rapidly increasing inflation,  poor business investment and risk appetite.

Even your choice of source,  the IMF,  predicts "the UK's decision to leave the EU was likely to exert a permanent drag on long term growth as it cut its forecast for growth in 2017 to 1.1%"

Tell me again what we're going to gain from all this?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

[slackline]

As long as the economy is doing dandy everyone living under it must be doing fine and sharing in that growth mustn't they?  That would be why there's been such a dramatic increase in utilisation of food banks over the last few years....



Economic quantification of growth (or otherwise) within in an economy doesn't always align with all individuals experiences within because it doesn't always follow that there is uniform shift for everyone.  The rich getting richer would result in a higher mean and greater variation whilst the poor remain in the same place.

[i.munro]

Other viewpoints/opinions are available if you look outside your own facebook/twitter feeds.

Is the Mail allowed - or are they guilty of "left-wing bias" from your POV as well ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2612079/Brits-suffered-biggest-wages-drop-G7-French-Germans-enjoy-pay-rises-despite-working-fewer-hours-do.html

[petejh]

(In reply to Slackers, but applies to above too)
That's all very well and not being disputed by anyone is it?

But what does that have to do with us leaving the EU, bearing in mind the situation you describe had/has nothing to do with brexit and pre-dates it by a long margin? I understand our species tendency to pin whatever ills us most on whatever most easily springs to mind, of course.

You might as well blame Tony Blair. Actually that's probably not a bad option.

[petejh]

So basically what you want (what everyone wants bar a very small number of extremely wealthy) is a redistribution of wealth and a more equal society. That has very little to do directly with the brexit debate and everythiong to do with the UK government.

Fultonius - a couple of articles in the Spectator sum up my views on what benefits brexit offers us. Far better to read those than for me try to explain cack-handedly. http://www.spectator.co.uk/tag/brexit/

In short - removal of a major constraint on government decision-making. A fully accountable government with no-where to hide, instead of a government with an easy out that can make itself appear to be acting as middle-management. The option to agree trade with whoever we choose.

[slackline]

(In reply to Slackers, but applies to above too)
That's all very well and not being disputed by anyone is it?

But what does that have to do with us leaving the EU, bearing in mind the situation you describe had/has nothing to do with brexit and pre-dates it by a long margin? I understand our species tendency to pin whatever ills us most on whatever most easily springs to mind, of course.

Thought it was patently obvious, guess I was wrong.

Discussion around growth/contraction of economies can be measured not just in terms of how markets and GDP are performing relative to other time points and economies, but also in terms of something called human impact .  A concern of many is that Brexit will slow down economic growth, you are countering these 'doom sayers' with metrics suggesting things aren't as bad as some predicted.

None of this quantifies the human impact that has many facets but across a society can be quantified in one dimension by the utilisation of food banks.  If things go tits up then recession is quite likely, further austerity follows squeezing the poorest in society.  However, if there isn't an economic recession and instead there is moderate growth that doesn't automatically mean that the worst off in society will benefit, its possible that the rich have got richer and the poor remain at the same level, but overall the economy looks better.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

That has very little to do directly with the brexit debate and everything to do with the UK government.

And who is undertaking the brexit negotiations?  Surely they have a responsibility to consider the impacts not only on the economy but the whole of society?  If the focus is only on one set of metrics (economic performance/strength) they could easily be misled into thinking things are dandy for everyone when that is not the case.

[SA Chris]

A fully accountable government

Fully accountable to who? They will no longer be fully accountable to a greater controlling hand, that's for sure.

Seems to me like the government (most likely to remain Tory) will remain true to their roots, help the rich Tory heartland voters, fuck the poor who naively voted for Brexit in the first place believing the lies they were sold that it would make their lives better, but if (or probably when) it goes to the wall, the toffs will look after own, first and foremost.

[petejh]

So the argument you seem to be making is that growth metrics such as GDP are only one way of measuring an economy and others - such as human impact - should be taken into account.

1. I agree.
2. Why then - if GDP is only one factor - not also point this argument to people when they claim that GDP is suffering as a result of brexit? The trend on this thread is to label all ills (in this case low GDP growth) on brexit. When somebody points out that we have the fastest growing economy of the G7, the line of argument switches to point out that GDP isn't all that a good indicator of an economy's health. It's a subtle shift, but a biased one nonetheless. The obvious counter is that despite lower GDP growth the human impact may be different with a government fully accountable to its public than one that isn't.

Thanks though, I'll be sure to use your point against anyone who argues that GDP is lower as a result of brexit. JB? 

Ref your second paragraph regarding food banks. As I just said, this situation predates anything to do with brexit by a long way. It's pretty damming reflection of the way the UK is currently. But it's a separate debate really.
 

[petejh]

A fully accountable government

Fully accountable to who? They will no longer be fully accountable to a greater controlling hand, that's for sure.

Seems to me like the government (most likely to remain Tory) will remain true to their roots, help the rich Tory heartland voters, fuck the poor who naively voted for Brexit in the first place believing the lies they were sold that it would make their lives better, but if (or probably when) it goes to the wall, the toffs will look after own, first and foremost.

Well there are only so many 'toffs' and 'tory heartland voters'. They aren't an infinite pool and democracy will dispose of a government that fails to satisfy the majority - imperfect voting systems noted. The big story is the lack of any credible opposition. Who else are they going to vote for?

[erm]

e.g. the IMF have 'U-turned' since before the referendum

You mean a "U-turn" on forecast which took Mr Cameron's word when said that he would immediately issue A50 notification after a vote for Brexit?

To be fair growth has been stronger than expected, but looking at the longer term forecasts, which include the effects of the Brexit process, growth weakens over the coming years just as other nations' growth strengthens...

[erm]

In short - removal of a major constraint on government decision-making. A fully accountable government with no-where to hide, instead of a government with an easy out that can make itself appear to be acting as middle-management.

Joesph Stiglitz:
"I think this illustrates a general point: that leaving the EU is not going to immunise you against bad policies. You can have bad policies in or out of the EU."

(http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/09/05/interview-joseph-stiglitz-brexit-euro-mistake/)

[petejh]

Here's a very good debate on bexit. Nothing on here really comes close, least of all from me.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/matthew-parris-vs-matt-ridley-on-brexit-bitterness/

[Johnny Brown]

Fultonius - a couple of articles in the Spectator sum up my views on what benefits brexit offers us. Far better to read those than for me try to explain cack-handedly. http://www.spectator.co.uk/tag/brexit/

Any chance you could link to those articles then? Assuming you don't wholeheartedly agree with everything the Spectator publishes on the subject...

[Johnny Brown]

Here's a very good debate on bexit. Nothing on here really comes close, least of all from me.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/matthew-parris-vs-matt-ridley-on-brexit-bitterness/

That's a good piece. I guess most of us here will find more sympathy with Parris. One thing they don't cover us that this has all come at a bad time with technological development. 'Fake news' used to come in papers like the Sport and Enquirer where we knew it was a joke. Now it comes through the same websites as the real stuff. People don't know where they are, and are losing faith in facts and going with their gut.

[erm]

Here's a very good debate on bexit. Nothing on here really comes close, least of all from me.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/matthew-parris-vs-matt-ridley-on-brexit-bitterness/

To turn a section of this on its head and on you:
RIDLEY erm: I wonder, Matthew petejh, what it would take to convince you that your fears hopes about Brexit were misplaced?


(In case anyone hasn't read the piece pete linked: Matthew = remain and Ridley = leave.)

[SA Chris]

The big story is the lack of any credible opposition. Who else are they going to vote for?

No, it's not the big story, it's side column. Big Story is with no credible opposition, the tories will basically have a mandate to do whatever they want without the control of Brussels and safe in the knowledge that it will be very difficult to oust them.

[petejh]

Here's a very good debate on bexit. Nothing on here really comes close, least of all from me.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/matthew-parris-vs-matt-ridley-on-brexit-bitterness/

To turn a section of this on its head and on you:
RIDLEY erm: I wonder, Matthew petejh, what it would take to convince you that your fears hopes about Brexit were misplaced?


(In case anyone hasn't read the piece pete linked: Matthew = remain and Ridley = leave.)

Ridley's answer to Parris, approximately.

E.g.
''RIDLEY: I wonder, Matthew, what it would take to convince you that your fears about Brexit were misplaced?
 
PARRIS: If I were completely wrong about all this, then within seven years or so our economy would be growing faster than the economies of our European partners. I would want to see a friendly and co-operative relationship between us. I would want that not to have hurt our relationship with the United States or the rest of the world, and I’d want to see Britain bounding ahead in the way that you and others have described. And then, if I’m still alive, I will write a piece for The Spectator saying I was wrong. And what about you?
 
RIDLEY: If in five years’ time we are lagging behind the rest of the EU economically — by the way, we may have a recession that has nothing to do with Brexit — but if we have bad relations with our EU allies that are preventing co-operation on standing up to Putin and so on, and if Theresa May has been replaced by a protectionist, then yes indeed, I will have made a mistake in voting the way I did.''

[petejh]

The big story is the lack of any credible opposition. Who else are they going to vote for?

No, it's not the big story, it's side column. Big Story is with no credible opposition, the tories will basically have a mandate to do whatever they want without the control of Brussels and safe in the knowledge that it will be very difficult to oust them.

But infinitely harder still to oust 'Brussels'. Why is this remote governance, which can't be 'ousted',  in any way a better situation than a government that can be?

[SA Chris]

Because they aren't Tories.

[Fultonius]

Can you name any instances where you didn't like something the EU has done and would wish for them to be ousted?

And how about the irony of the fact we're now removing  ourselves from the EU but will most likely still need to abide by rules that we will have no influence over to keep trading?

How bad will the plan need to look before you start to feel that a maybe it's just a very shit deal where we will lose far far more than we could "gain"  (the reason I put gain in inverted commas is that I don't believe there is much to be gained anyway,  but I think we can agree to disagree on that)

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

[petejh]

Because they aren't Tories.

Weak response and certainly no reason to vote to submit to continued membership.

[petejh]

Can you name any instances where you didn't like something the EU has done and would wish for them to be ousted?

And how about the irony of the fact we're now removing  ourselves from the EU but will most likely still need to abide by rules that we will have no influence over to keep trading?

How bad will the plan need to look before you start to feel that a maybe it's just a very shit deal where we will lose far far more than we could "gain"  (the reason I put gain in inverted commas is that I don't believe there is much to be gained anyway,  but I think we can agree to disagree on that)

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

That's hardly a worthwhile point is it? You may as well accept governance by a bloke on a laptop in Nigeria if the only requirement is it doesn't do anything you don't like.

I think we have far more to gain through being a country open to trade with who we choose on terms we a free to negotiate than by not being. Likewise freedom of movement - better to be free to choose who to negotiate with and not be constrained to just a largely white European population to the detriment of someone better qualified from somewhere else in the world.

Any chance you could link to those articles then? Assuming you don't wholeheartedly agree with everything the Spectator publishes on the subject...

JB - if any one article best articulates my own feelings about the EU then it's this one: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/out-and-into-the-world-why-the-spectator-is-for-leave/

I think that the common market is a great idea in theory. But not central european governance and ever closer union.

[erm]

Because they aren't Tories.

Weak response and certainly no reason to vote to submit to continued membership.

I don't know where you live pete, but up here in Scotland there is a strong concern that British politics is dominated by southern England and therefore by the Conservative party.

The EU, with worker protections and other such rules, is then viewed as inhibiting the Conservatives from remaking the UK in their preferred image. Now, of course, we finder ourselves with no effective opposition and a Conservative government turning this fear into a reality.

[petejh]

Because they aren't Tories.

Weak response and certainly no reason to vote to submit to continued membership.

I don't know where you live pete, but up here in Scotland there is a strong concern that British politics is dominated by southern England and therefore by the Conservative party.

The EU, with worker protections and other such rules, is then viewed as inhibiting the Conservatives from remaking the UK in their preferred image. Now, of course, we finder ourselves with no effective opposition and a Conservative government turning this fear into a reality.

In other words you're concerned by a remote government that doesn't represent you? Sounds familiar to me.

If the opposition is weak then who's going to fix that? The only people who can fix that are the people. Seems to be a lot of people looking beyond our shores to an institution that at heart has the motive to protect itself and expand, for a solution to domestic problems entirely of our own making.