[petejh]

I'm aware of that, but it's also been talked about a lot and I'm curious as to whether you think no deal would still be better than remaining?

I doubt if either you or me is qualified to know objectively what that would really mean 2 months, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years down the line. Just as we aren't for remaining, although there are more knowns than unknowns for this. I'm interested in listening to the opinions of forecasters, from wildly pessimist to wildly optimistic, while bearing in mind the consistent inaccuracy and margin of error of forecasters - not just in brexit but in economics generally.

But subjectively yes I'd rather we left and you'd rather we remained.

[Johnny Brown]

Any good links to these forecasts? All I see that we don't seem to have made any progress on even the most basic thing like the Irish border.

[petejh]

How long have you got. You could start with the Bank of England circa 2016 including subsequent revisions.

[slackline]

Some pre-referendum forecasting from HM Treasury....

@JolyonMaugham  QC on HM Treasury report on effects of #brexshit written BEFORE referendum!!!

[petejh]

Some pre-referendum forecasting from HM Treasury....

@JolyonMaugham  QC on HM Treasury report on effects of #brexshit written BEFORE referendum!!!

Thanks Slackers, can always rely on you for links!

That'll be the same treasury that predicted 4 quarters of recession immediately following a brexit vote:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu

“The Treasury said there would be four quarters of recession, we have had six months since the Brexit vote, we should have been in recession by now, but we are not. Things are maybe a bit delayed but the whole succession of investment announcements we have had from Nissan, Microsoft and others suggests that companies are taking a much more sanguine view of this than the Treasury and others have suggested.''

The above is from a Cambridge University report published in Jan 2017: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/new-report-on-macro-economic-impact-of-brexit-questions-treasury-forecasts

We can all post links, most of them will be partisan, doesn't prove much.

I do recommend anyone who's interested in getting a clearer understanding to listen to the podcast featuring the authors of the above report, where they outline the 5 distinct options post brexit, and give their forecast to go into the mix..

[slackline]

Some pre-referendum forecasting from HM Treasury....

@JolyonMaugham  QC on HM Treasury report on effects of #brexshit written BEFORE referendum!!!

Thanks Slackers, can always rely on you for links!

That'll be the same treasury that predicted 4 quarters of recession immediately following a brexit vote:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu

"Following a brexit vote" != "leaving the eu"

The forecast/predictions of the impact of Brexit are as yet untested....the UK hasn't yet left the EU.  I've said before I don't particularly care for the economic arguments, economists seem particularly shit at predicting what is going to happen and most forecasts of growth, should they be accurate, will benefit a small minority of rich people since increases in GDP are not evenly distributed, its a neat way of using statistics to mask things.  There are plenty of other reasons to remain in the EU but I won't be repeating myself and typing them out again.

[petejh]

I've said before I don't particularly care for the economic arguments, economists seem particularly shit at predicting what is going to happen and most forecasts of growth, should they be accurate, will benefit a small minority of rich people since increases in GDP are not evenly distributed, its a neat way of using statistics to mask things.

Couldn't agree more. This would have made a nice preface to that treasury forecast you posted two posts ago...

[slackline]

This would have made a nice preface to that treasury forecast you posted two posts ago...

As would avoiding conflating predictions about events that have not happened with hindsight as you posted three posts ago...

[andy popp]

Charming: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Oldmanmatt]

Of course, he has absolutely no authority to demand any such information and to a large extent I would be very much more concerned by those institutions that acquiesced to the request; if any. 

[A Jooser]

Doesn't he, in fact, have every legal right to such information? Perhaps he'll just need to tell them to consider his letter a Freedom of Information Request. This raises two questions in my mind: why are the University of Worcester and the LSE avoiding their FOI obligations? And why are the media not challenging the Universities on their lack of FOI compliance?

[Will Hunt]

FOI applies to public authorities only. In the case of universities it is the governing body which is the public authority, not the university itself.

Edit: just clicked through to the links there. The university's own information seems to conflict with that of the ICO.

[Oldmanmatt]

Doesn't he, in fact, have every legal right to such information? Perhaps he'll just need to tell them to consider his letter a Freedom of Information Request. This raises two questions in my mind: why are the University of Worcester and the LSE avoiding their FOI obligations? And why are the media not challenging the Universities on their lack of FOI compliance?

I would suspect they would argue that the request is Vexatious as a legitimate grounds for refusal, provided for within the act. However, that position could be challenged and the appropriate authority would be asked to rule (isn’t that “the Chancelor of the Dutchy of something or other” or something equally arcane?) on the requests merit, etc etc.
Basically, the request can be deflected almost ad infinitum if there is the slightest hint of Vexation?

I had a quick gander at section 14 of FOIA and pinched the overview:

  Under section 14(1) of the Act, public authorities do not have to comply with vexatious requests. There is no public interest test.   Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances.    Section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself and not the individual who submitted it.   Sometimes a request may be so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will obviously be vexatious.   In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.   This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request.   The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.

Edit:
Oh and the “Round Robin” nature of the request can also be taken into the context of the request, I believe?

[A Jooser]

I was going to ask if you were sure about that Will.

The following document is on Worcester Uni's page
https://www.worcester.ac.uk/informationassurance/documents/FREEDOM_OF_INFORMATION_ACT_POLICY.pdf

1.1 Any individual or organisation has the right:
- To access information in the University's Publication Scheme, which details all information that the University routinely makes available to the public.
- To request any information held by the University; regardless of when it was created, by whom, or the form in which it is now held.

It's not as if syllabuses and faculty lists are not routinely published, no doubt the MP could find them himself if he put a little effort in. Nevertheless his polite request is entitled to a polite reply pointing him in the direction of the information he's looking for.

Anyway, I'm glad to see Universities finally standing up for free speech - makes a change from all the 'no platforming'. Must go now as the new forum layout is making my eyes hurt and I had to let my avatar go as I couldn't stand to see it squashed!

P.S. Matt, I'm sure you're right 'vexatious' is usually the way people choose to get round these things, it's more often used when an individual makes repeated requests of a similar nature, I believe (though the text you posted would seem to contradict this). The request seems reasonable enough to me as no judgement can be made about this chap's motives (this much your text seems to support). As I said, he can probably find what he's looking for himself without too much trouble.

Really must go and be now...

[Duma]

The request seems reasonable enough to me as no judgement can be made about this chap's motives

 
get a grip

[jfdm]

Brexit car crash, is now growing into a motorway style pile up.
Today has been a classic for Brexshit plans.

Jacob Rees-Mogg - Radio 5 Live has been broadcasting an interview he conducted with Emma Barnett. In it he described the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, as an “enemy” of Brexit.

Double D - Mr Brexit, during Brexit committee exchange happened between Lab Mp and Double D.
Davis says parliament may not get vote on final Brexit deal until after Brexit happens
BrexitPete so much for parliament taking back control, sovereignty etc.

DD also stated that he dislikes mathematical modelling as it was always incorrect.
But would not publish Brexit impact assessments, presumably these are incorrect.
So much for making informed decisions, transparency etc.

Hours later PM clarifies Brexit timing, apparently Double d was shooting from the hip
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/oct/25/theresa-may-confident-that-parliament-will-have-vote-on-final-brexit-deal-video

Dominic Grieve - former attorney general
"If govt try to do it [leave EU without vote on deal] there would be a serious risk of legal challenge"

In other news
The head of HM Revenue and Customs has said the tax authorities would need up to £450m in extra funding and up to 5,000 extra staff to deal with the impact of Britain leaving the European Union without a deal.

Ivan Rodgers - former chief gov advisor on brexit - no Brexit deal, we would end up being like Venezuela.

In a nut shell Brexit a shit shambles.
It’s like the Thick of It but simply the sad reality of the situation.

[A Jooser]

The request seems reasonable enough to me as no judgement can be made about this chap's motives

 
get a grip

I was replying directly to OMM's points re. vexatious FOI requests...

I had a quick gander at section 14 of FOIA and pinched the overview:

...Section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself and not the individual who submitted it...
 

i.e. any motives the individual may have in submitting a request are immaterial.

Bit surprised that needs explaining.

Anyway, I heard Bo-Jo's brother on the radio this morning say it was something to do with research for a book on 'attitudes to the EU'. Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. As an aside, my sources suggest legal advice at Liverpool University is to treat the letter as an FOI request.

[Oldmanmatt]

The request seems reasonable enough to me as no judgement can be made about this chap's motives

 
get a grip

I was replying directly to OMM's points re. vexatious FOI requests...

I had a quick gander at section 14 of FOIA and pinched the overview:

...Section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself and not the individual who submitted it...
 

i.e. any motives the individual may have in submitting a request are immaterial.

Bit surprised that needs explaining.

Anyway, I heard Bo-Jo's brother on the radio this morning say it was something to do with research for a book on 'attitudes to the EU'. Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. As an aside, my sources suggest legal advice at Liverpool University is to treat the letter as an FOI request.

I think, the relevant part of section 14 is the “context” of the request, the “Round Robin” nature (that is to say the request was made to numerous institutions) and that it requests information already publicly available (in large part).
I was closer to Will’s impression of a University’s status with regard to being public body.
I had imagined they would have delineated for purposes of protecting intellectual property. Entirely an assumption, of course, not being an academic.
I assume there must be some mechanism in place? Or can I just rock up and demand any research I fancy?
You know, it would save a fair bit in journal subscriptions...


That was an ironic comment, but I wonder how you distinguish between the IP of a lecture or syllabus (which should be unique and proprietary to the institution, surely?), against the IP of research? One informs the other, no?
Whilst copyright might prevent me using IP, it wouldn’t prevent me being informed by it and modifing my own research etc based on information obtained.


Where I going here, is that I suspect that whilst the Syllabus might be subject to FOIA, the content, notes and sundry ought to be protected somehow?

Or can I just FOI myself any Uni course I want?

[mrjonathanr]

Anyway, I heard Bo-Jo's brother on the radio this morning say it was something to do with research for a book on 'attitudes to the EU'. Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine.

My guess? He's just wants to find out a bit more about the topic since the government minister David Jones confirmed in August that the 50 sector impact analysis papers conducted by the government were not going to be published. Probably just wants to be a bit better educated and suspects FOI will get nowhere with this administration.

Jooser, your comment 

no judgement can be made about... motives

is quite endearing in its naivety. Bless.

[A Jooser]

Matt, an FOI request being made to numerous institutions cannot be reason to consider it vexatious, otherwise journalists contacting every council in the country to ask what cladding they use on their tower blocks wouldn't be possible. But I agree with you that institutions can and do use any means they can imagine to deny requests. You are quite right; eventually it goes round in circles until it becomes 'vexatious'. All very much against the spirit and intention of the Act.

As for the rest of your points, I've no idea. But we might get a better understanding after the statutory 20 working days.
I'm going to leave these here; I think it will be fun to look back on them latter...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/teaching_of_european_affairs#incoming-1058957
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/european_affairs#incoming-1058959
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_vice_chancellors_corresponde#incoming-1058425
 

...and my favourite...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/correspondence_from_chris_heaton#incoming-1058952
 

[mrjonathanr]

I'm afraid that
Prof Julian Petley Brunel University London
Dr Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos Brunel University London
Prof Andrew Choo City University London
Prof Bernardine Evaristo Brunel University London
Scott Crosby-Kremlers Advocate and assistant professor, Vesalius College, Brussels
Josie Welland Solicitor
Roger Casale CEO, New Europeans
Prof David Rosen (Hon) Darlingtons solicitors LLP
Prof Valsamis Mitsilegas Queen Mary University London
Prof Arad Reisberg Brunel University London
Jessica Corsi Brunel University London
Prof Paul Roberts University of Nottingham
Dr Maria Kotsovili Brunel University London
George Hatziioannou Former diplomat
Prof Benjamin Zephaniah Brunel University London
Dr Stelios Andreadakis Brunel University London
Dr Jurgita Malinauskaite Brunel University London
Prof Ed Cape University of the West of England
Dr Ermioni Xanthopoulou Hertfordshire Law School
Dr Adrienne Yong City University London
Prof Iyiola Solanke University of Leeds

aren't so at ease with this chap's comments, describing his behaviour as
 

quite clearly designed to intimidate academics who voted to remain, [...]McCarthyite and a disgraceful assault on academic freedom.

Shame they don't share your sangfroid.

[Oldmanmatt]

Matt, an FOI request being made to numerous institutions cannot be reason to consider it vexatious, otherwise journalists contacting every council in the country to ask what cladding they use on their tower blocks wouldn't be possible. But I agree with you that institutions can and do use any means they can imagine to deny requests. You are quite right; eventually it goes round in circles until it becomes 'vexatious'. All very much against the spirit and intention of the Act.

As for the rest of your points, I've no idea. But we might get a better understanding after the statutory 20 working days.
I'm going to leave these here; I think it will be fun to look back on them latter...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/teaching_of_european_affairs#incoming-1058957
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/european_affairs#incoming-1058959
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_vice_chancellors_corresponde#incoming-1058425
 

...and my favourite...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/correspondence_from_chris_heaton#incoming-1058952
 

Ah, now straight off, I would describe the reqests as vexatious where they ask the authority to merely collate information already in the public domain.
But that’s just a first reflex.

 
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf

[Oldmanmatt]

Good morning!

Cheery reading to boost the Halloween spirt!

Mwu-ha-ha-haaaa!


https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/925049692685205504

[Oldmanmatt]

Oofff...!

That’s going to smart.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-studies-economic-damage-vote-mps-force-latest-a8032311.html

[jfdm]

Tax + Brexit they maybe linked? Not a surprise really.
Seems as though the clouds are parting and the truth is coming out as to why big players want brexshit.

Comment from BTL from Guardian politics page.

"Truly a disgusting show of hypocrisy to hear the British parliament and government claiming disgrace when they have utterly failed to tackle tax avoidance for decades, this is a culture permeated within the slime oiling the revolving doors surrounding governments, layers and finances.
To truly tackle tax avoidance of the scale of the panama and paradise papers requires transnational cooperations to close loopholes and fiscal paradises, the British government have been one of the biggest obstacles for meaningful action by the EU:

EU’s Efforts to Clamp Down on Tax Avoidance Strategies Swiftly Advance
http://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0A7BLI/hktdc-research/EU%E2%80%99s-Efforts-to-Clamp-Down-on-Tax-Avoidance-Strategies-Swiftly-Advance

EU targets lawyers and accountants in tax-avoidance clampdown
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/30/eu-targets-lawyers-and-accountants-in-tax-avoidance-clampdown

This has been the UK government attitude:

UK to reject EU plans to combat multinational tax avoidance
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/uk-reject-eu-plans-combat-multinational-tax-avoidance

This is why:

How many Brexit financers have money to lose if this happens?
UK overseas territories could be affected by EU tax crackdown
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/15/uk-overseas-territories-eu-tax-crackdown-economic-sanctions