BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

I think everyone's agreeing now?

The forecasts should be treated with caution, obviously, they represent a range, obviously, no modelling can completely capture the complexity, obviously. But that doesn't make it impossible to model given those caveats - evidence being the model.

What they don't say is start with "there is no alternative timeline - hence no reference point." (which is true) and move on to infer that therefore we can't tell at all what the impact is likely to have been.

It kinda goes without saying that there is only one reality - at least one that we are all aware of. There is loads of other blatantly obvious stuff that potentially could go in, but would look a bit daft if they did.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

bompington said:

Disappointed in Boris's government, they don't seem to have the same positive attitude as Stevo. And they obviously haven't got the memo about how pointless modelling is, either:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-analysis-shows-brexit-deal-will-make-uk-poorer-2019-10?r=US&IR=T

From the report: I've highlighted a few key parts in bold.
"This analysis is not an economic forecast for the UK economy. In particular:
• It only considers the potential economic impacts that are specific to EU exit. Leaving the EU is just one of many factors that will influence the UK's economic performance in the long run. Other factors such as the rise of global value chains, the increasing importance of services trade, technological developments, and global demographics are held constant;
• The analysis does not make judgements about any future UK Government policy decisions or responses; and
• The estimates show the relative impacts of different trading arrangements in the long term and do not estimate the absolute increase or decrease in economic output compared to today. The results therefore show the broad relative impacts of the different scenarios, and in all scenarios the economy would be expected to grow.
No modelling can completely capture the complex ways in which the UK economy could be affected by exiting the EU, particularly given the unprecedented circumstances of the UK's departure. While the analysis draws on a robust set of tools and evidence, there is an inherent uncertainty around this type of economic analysis. The results are therefore presented as ranges, and should be interpreted with caution."

Which is basically what I have been saying above.

You're a teacher so you should know about reading things properly before answering the question

C-

I would delete this if I were you.

At least I now know what part of economic modelling you don’t understand

It's clear you still don't get it.

My point has always been around the inherent limitations of this type of forecasting. The disclaimers in the report state these limitations.

Hope that's simple enough for you to grasp.

Read the bits not in bold - they explain what you don’t understand about economic modelling.

Still not convinced you aren’t trolling so will leave you to it as I really can not help any more.

Read my simple statement above - either you are not as bright as I thought, or you're just being difficult.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

I think everyone's agreeing now?

The forecasts should be treated with caution, obviously, they represent a range, obviously, no modelling can completely capture the complexity, obviously. But that doesn't make it impossible to model given those caveats - evidence being the model.

What they don't say is start with "there is no alternative timeline - hence no reference point." (which is true) and move on to infer that therefore we can't tell at all what the impact is likely to have been.

It kinda goes without saying that there is only one reality - at least one that we are all aware of. There is loads of other blatantly obvious stuff that potentially could go in, but would look a bit daft if they did.

It didn't go without saying.

rjsterry

I feel this may have informed some of the "buccaneering spirit" nonsense.



The level of mass delusion is just breathtaking.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

I feel this may have informed some of the "buccaneering spirit" nonsense.



The level of mass delusion is just breathtaking.

The crucial bit seems to be "From what you know..."

rick_chasey

Ha. Embarrassing.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

I think everyone's agreeing now?

The forecasts should be treated with caution, obviously, they represent a range, obviously, no modelling can completely capture the complexity, obviously. But that doesn't make it impossible to model given those caveats - evidence being the model.

What they don't say is start with "there is no alternative timeline - hence no reference point." (which is true) and move on to infer that therefore we can't tell at all what the impact is likely to have been.

It kinda goes without saying that there is only one reality - at least one that we are all aware of. There is loads of other blatantly obvious stuff that potentially could go in, but would look a bit daft if they did.

It didn't go without saying.

It needed to be mentioned to SC, as he seemed to be struggling to the extent he was unable to explain what he thought I didn't understand and resorted to being condescending instead.

Pross

rjsterry said:

I feel this may have informed some of the "buccaneering spirit" nonsense.



The level of mass delusion is just breathtaking.

I'm surprised on the generational one as I would have thought the older generation would have had UK in 2 and millennials having it lower.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

I feel this may have informed some of the "buccaneering spirit" nonsense.

There's none of that in the Cake Stop bubble, thank God.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

I feel this may have informed some of the "buccaneering spirit" nonsense.

There's none of that in the Cake Stop bubble, thank God.

Top 5 or even top 10 would be nothing to be ashamed of; we should be quite happy with that.

rjsterry

F*** business, or at least f*** manufacturing, continues.

https://www.ft.com/content/18ddc610-3940-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

In reality the Japan/EU FTA includes regulatory convergence in the motor manufacturing sector.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

F*** business, or at least f*** manufacturing, continues.

https://www.ft.com/content/18ddc610-3940-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

In reality the Japan/EU FTA includes regulatory convergence in the motor manufacturing sector.

So, instead of alignment with EU rules, we'll take all our regulatory cues from the US so we can do a trade deal. "Take Back Control". Yeah, right.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

F*** business, or at least f*** manufacturing, continues.

https://www.ft.com/content/18ddc610-3940-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

In reality the Japan/EU FTA includes regulatory convergence in the motor manufacturing sector.

So, instead of alignment with EU rules, we'll take all our regulatory cues from the US so we can do a trade deal. "Take Back Control". Yeah, right.

I can't read the link as it's behind the ft pay wall but of course there needs to be some alignment to sell into each other markets in the auto sector - e.g. steering wheel on the correct side etc.

However do you really think it's as simple as falling completely into line with the US? Or could that be
a spot of scaremongering?

Also it seems to be the EU that seems to be insisting on a degree of alignment not normally present in FTAs.

orraloon

Summarised in this BBC link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51161808

Why continue to bang that same old drum when you have 'won'? I cannot see what audience Toryboy Javid needs to play to like that. Unless it is indeed the start of the messaging to get the numpties used to kowtowing to the USAnians? Take back control right enough.

rick_chasey

So odd hearing him say that after I spent 20 mins whilst waiting for a bus right next to where he was campaigning for remain, listening to him say how bad Brexit would be for business.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

So, instead of alignment with EU rules, we'll take all our regulatory cues from the US so we can do a trade deal. "Take Back Control". Yeah, right.

I can't read the link as it's behind the ft pay wall but of course there needs to be some alignment to sell into each other markets in the auto sector - e.g. steering wheel on the correct side etc.

However do you really think it's as simple as falling completely into line with the US? Or could that be
a spot of scaremongering?

Also it seems to be the EU that seems to be insisting on a degree of alignment not normally present in FTAs.

Tell me, who do you think is likely to have greater leverage in trade negotiations? Plucky little UK, or the rather larger US? How do these things normally work out? Do relatively small nations get preferential treatment with the US? If I'm not mis-remembering, there have been some noises about what the UK will have to accept in order to get access to US markets. What leverage have we got? Is it like the leverage we've got with the EU in the 'easiest trade deal in human history'?

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

So, instead of alignment with EU rules, we'll take all our regulatory cues from the US so we can do a trade deal. "Take Back Control". Yeah, right.

I can't read the link as it's behind the ft pay wall but of course there needs to be some alignment to sell into each other markets in the auto sector - e.g. steering wheel on the correct side etc.

However do you really think it's as simple as falling completely into line with the US? Or could that be
a spot of scaremongering?

Also it seems to be the EU that seems to be insisting on a degree of alignment not normally present in FTAs.

Tell me, who do you think is likely to have greater leverage in trade negotiations? Plucky little UK, or the rather larger US? How do these things normally work out? Do relatively small nations get preferential treatment with the US? If I'm not mis-remembering, there have been some noises about what the UK will have to accept in order to get access to US markets. What leverage have we got? Is it like the leverage we've got with the EU in the 'easiest trade deal in human history'?

I'm not sure specifically what you think is going to be imposed on us that worries you.

Access to markets is the main point of trade deals and if you think of our current arrangement with the EU, a good part of that is a trade deal. Except with lots of other strings attached which the US would not impose. For example the US would never insist on free movement of its citizens into the UK, or have the US Supreme Court have a say in out legal affairs. And yet some people are quite happy to accept the equivalent set up with the EU.

Why is it so much worse for US businesses to market access, compared to European oneshaving access? (Other than the usual anti-US bias).

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

So, instead of alignment with EU rules, we'll take all our regulatory cues from the US so we can do a trade deal. "Take Back Control". Yeah, right.

I can't read the link as it's behind the ft pay wall but of course there needs to be some alignment to sell into each other markets in the auto sector - e.g. steering wheel on the correct side etc.

However do you really think it's as simple as falling completely into line with the US? Or could that be
a spot of scaremongering?

Also it seems to be the EU that seems to be insisting on a degree of alignment not normally present in FTAs.

Tell me, who do you think is likely to have greater leverage in trade negotiations? Plucky little UK, or the rather larger US? How do these things normally work out? Do relatively small nations get preferential treatment with the US? If I'm not mis-remembering, there have been some noises about what the UK will have to accept in order to get access to US markets. What leverage have we got? Is it like the leverage we've got with the EU in the 'easiest trade deal in human history'?

I'm not sure specifically what you think is going to be imposed on us that worries you.

Access to markets is the main point of trade deals and if you think of our current arrangement with the EU, a good part of that is a trade deal. Except with lots of other strings attached which the US would not impose. For example the US would never insist on free movement of its citizens into the UK, or have the US Supreme Court have a say in out legal affairs. And yet some people are quite happy to accept the equivalent set up with the EU.

Why is it so much worse for US businesses to market access, compared to European oneshaving access? (Other than the usual anti-US bias).

Here's a better researched list than I would manage. https://www.tjm.org.uk/trade-deals/a-uk-us-trade-deal

Are you going to answer the question about who's got more leverage?

briantrumpet

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

rick_chasey

He’s basically confirmed what they denied in the election re deregulating on things like worker’s rights etc.

surrey_commuter

As we seem to be putting all of our eggs in one USA basket we will face a choice of aligning with them or the EU.

FWIW I have sympathy for the view that some EU regs are just trade barriers.

rjsterry

Surely all regulations are a barrier to some trade - i.e. goods or services that do not meet those regulations. If they didn't provide some sort of restrictions there wouldn't be any point in having regulations. The question is whether a given regulation actually does what it purports to or is really just disguised protectionism with no real benefit for consumers or the wider population.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Surely all regulations are a barrier to some trade - i.e. goods or services that do not meet those regulations. If they didn't provide some sort of restrictions there wouldn't be any point in having regulations. The question is whether a given regulation actually does what it purports to or is really just disguised protectionism with no real benefit for consumers or the wider population.

Your last sentence is my, badly expressed, point.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

As we seem to be putting all of our eggs in one USA basket we will face a choice of aligning with them or the EU.

FWIW I have sympathy for the view that some EU regs are just trade barriers.

Controversial point: EU is less protectionist than either the US or China and re championing big business is moving the pendulum towards protectionism.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Surely all regulations are a barrier to some trade - i.e. goods or services that do not meet those regulations. If they didn't provide some sort of restrictions there wouldn't be any point in having regulations. The question is whether a given regulation actually does what it purports to or is really just disguised protectionism with no real benefit for consumers or the wider population.

Your last sentence is my, badly expressed, point.

Conversely, I wonder whether some of the cries of protectionism are really just a wish to sell into a market without all the cost of having to meet the standards.

As various people have pointed out, regardless of where UK regs actually end up, manufacturers looking to export to the EU (and most would be daft to ignore a market on our doorstep) will still need to meet EU regs. It may well turn out to be an illusory freedom.

rjsterry

Various commentators - David Henig, Peter Foster, Mujtaba Rahman - seem to be concluding that approach to the US is as much about making a point to the EU about us 'meaning business'.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Various commentators - David Henig, Peter Foster, Mujtaba Rahman - seem to be concluding that approach to the US is as much about making a point to the EU about us 'meaning business'.

If we make a point them by doing this, it could well be a good thing in terms of on-going negotiations with the EU.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

He’s basically confirmed what they denied in the election re deregulating on things like worker’s rights etc.

As part of a US trade deal?

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

As there is no way of knowing if a FTA will be positive or negative then it may as we’ll be done for political reasons