BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Fortunately we'll almost certainly never find out. But there''s another thread for that.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:In your view, maybe. In many peoples view, Corbyn could do a lot more damage if he got in, which is why Labour are still so far behind in the polls despite a hard Brexit being a possibility.
Even he couldn't damage trade so quickly."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Joelsim wrote:
By the way, are you a racist?
Such a comment is unbecoming.
Well, what is the reason for wanting to make millions of people face severe hardship?
I'm curious to know how someone can justify this to themselves. And how they can justify sticking their fingers in their ears when faced with expert opinion.
There must be a logic to it.0 -
Too small to read and the Times website truncates it after a couple of paragraphs, so no way for me to see what assumptions etc they are using and whether this is a worst case scenario, or 'mid table' type of forecast. Got a link that works?Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248
Strangely, the figures in this scenario do not mention that there will be 3 million less people contributing to the GDP figure. Care to reproduce your figures taking that into account?
And when did total GDP become the be all and end all figure that demonstrates the health of the economy? Looks like the only way we achieved GDP 'growth' in recent years is through importing 300,000 people a year
Where have 3 million people disappeared to?
This is a poorly written article. This figure seems to assume the rate of growth will be 0.6% lower each year. Through the miracle of compound growth (see Einstein and strongest force in the universe, interest = growth) after 15 years you end up with a reduced tax take of £66bn. This is a figure net of our £8bn EU contribution.
To be honest this is nothing new. It was known all along and was deemed a price worth paying - it is only a net drop of £4.4bn a year.
The 3 million have not gone anywhere, they have just not migrated to the UK. (I'm not getting into a discussion on what immigration could be in 15 years time!)
So that is 300,000 people a year, ergo that is a 0.5% increase in UK population (roughly) which is almost exactly the lower growth rate figure you wrote. Calculate it on working age population and the figures are likely to cancel each other out.
Net migration from the EU is only 180,000 so assuming key workers etc you will at best knock 100,000 off the annual number. Even if you knocked 150,000 off it would no longer make your sums add up.
Why do it on working age population (genuine question) surely if anything you would do only dependents.
As this treasury document was requested by dear boy George to enhance his project fear projections we can safely discredit it and this article. As you say it is poorly written, and it is based on a worst case scenario request by George.
I think most of the Brexit leadership concede a 0.5% annual drop so it seems fairly conservative. The Times is just chosing how it shows the numbers for max impact.... if they said Brexit to cost us £4.4bn a year it would not be front page headlines0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Too small to read and the Times website truncates it after a couple of paragraphs, so no way for me to see what assumptions etc they are using and whether this is a worst case scenario, or 'mid table' type of forecast. Got a link that works?Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248
They are mid-table - only using 0.6% reduction in growth and netting off EU contributions. £66bn is cummulative over 15 years, so £4.4bn per annum. All very reasonable just a very shouty headline.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248
Strangely, the figures in this scenario do not mention that there will be 3 million less people contributing to the GDP figure. Care to reproduce your figures taking that into account?
And when did total GDP become the be all and end all figure that demonstrates the health of the economy? Looks like the only way we achieved GDP 'growth' in recent years is through importing 300,000 people a year
Where have 3 million people disappeared to?
This is a poorly written article. This figure seems to assume the rate of growth will be 0.6% lower each year. Through the miracle of compound growth (see Einstein and strongest force in the universe, interest = growth) after 15 years you end up with a reduced tax take of £66bn. This is a figure net of our £8bn EU contribution.
To be honest this is nothing new. It was known all along and was deemed a price worth paying - it is only a net drop of £4.4bn a year.
The 3 million have not gone anywhere, they have just not migrated to the UK. (I'm not getting into a discussion on what immigration could be in 15 years time!)
So that is 300,000 people a year, ergo that is a 0.5% increase in UK population (roughly) which is almost exactly the lower growth rate figure you wrote. Calculate it on working age population and the figures are likely to cancel each other out.
Net migration from the EU is only 180,000 so assuming key workers etc you will at best knock 100,000 off the annual number. Even if you knocked 150,000 off it would no longer make your sums add up.
Why do it on working age population (genuine question) surely if anything you would do only dependents.
As this treasury document was requested by dear boy George to enhance his project fear projections we can safely discredit it and this article. As you say it is poorly written, and it is based on a worst case scenario request by George.
I think most of the Brexit leadership concede a 0.5% annual drop so it seems fairly conservative. The Times is just chosing how it shows the numbers for max impact.... if they said Brexit to cost us £4.4bn a year it would not be front page headlines
It isn't £4.4bn per year. It's £66bn per year in lower tax receipts. £66bn per year.0 -
One of you has to be wrong - as I can't read the article, anyone want to post the relevant bit from the report?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
OK, found some readable links. Here's one from the Guardian to show I'm not biased
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/hard-brexit-treasury-66bn-eu-single-market
A few thoughts to play devils advocate:
1. It was a document produced during the referendum campaign
2. The £66bn is a worst case scenario (a range is quoted)
3. To get to that you have to assume that the forecast difference in growth rates between staying in and hard BREXIT is maintained over a 15 year period. Given economic forecasters can't typically get it right one year in advance and knowing the inherent un-forecastability of the future, that is a big ask."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:OK, found some readable links. Here's one from the Guardian to show I'm not biased
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/hard-brexit-treasury-66bn-eu-single-market
A few thoughts to play devils advocate:
1. It was a document produced during the referendum campaign
2. The £66bn is a worst case scenario (a range is quoted)
3. To get to that you have to assume that the forecast difference in growth rates between staying in and hard BREXIT is maintained over a 15 year period. Given economic forecasters can't typically get it right one year in advance and knowing the inherent un-forecastability of the future, that is a big ask.
Of course. It is a forecast. But The Treasury are standing by it.
I really don't get this notion that it is biased because it was used to say we are better off remaining. The IMF said the same thing and this is broadly in line with that. Soros said the same thing and it's also broadly in line with that.
What we can ascertain with good certainty is that a hard Brexit is going to cost everyone an awful lot of money whether it's 38bn, £66bn or whatever.0 -
Haha just saw this.
"Imagine if remain had won by 52% and they took that to mean a 'hard remain' ; Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage, the lot. People would go apeshit"0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Haha just saw this.
"Imagine if remain had won by 52% and they took that to mean a 'hard remain' ; Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage, the lot. People would go apeshit"
But everyone knows you can't ignore all the wishes you have extrapolated onto 17 million voters. Ignoring 16 million is fine though.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:OK, found some readable links. Here's one from the Guardian to show I'm not biased
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/hard-brexit-treasury-66bn-eu-single-market
A few thoughts to play devils advocate:
1. It was a document produced during the referendum campaign
2. The £66bn is a worst case scenario (a range is quoted)
3. To get to that you have to assume that the forecast difference in growth rates between staying in and hard BREXIT is maintained over a 15 year period. Given economic forecasters can't typically get it right one year in advance and knowing the inherent un-forecastability of the future, that is a big ask.
I agree that over 15 years there will be so many variables that isolating individual factors becomes very difficult. However it is generally accepted that free trade with the EU is worth 0.5% growth per year. It would be very generous to assume that other factors would balance each other out.
As I said prevopusly £66bn is a scary number (why it was used) but in reality this is £4.4bn a year.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:OK, found some readable links. Here's one from the Guardian to show I'm not biased
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/hard-brexit-treasury-66bn-eu-single-market
A few thoughts to play devils advocate:
1. It was a document produced during the referendum campaign
2. The £66bn is a worst case scenario (a range is quoted)
3. To get to that you have to assume that the forecast difference in growth rates between staying in and hard BREXIT is maintained over a 15 year period. Given economic forecasters can't typically get it right one year in advance and knowing the inherent un-forecastability of the future, that is a big ask.
I agree that over 15 years there will be so many variables that isolating individual factors becomes very difficult. However it is generally accepted that free trade with the EU is worth 0.5% growth per year. It would be very generous to assume that other factors would balance each other out.
As I said prevopusly £66bn is a scary number (why it was used) but in reality this is £4.4bn a year.
No it isn't. Read the article again. It's £66bn per year.0 -
From The Guardian article ( which I can copy and paste).
Treasury coffers may take a £66bn annual hit if Britain goes for a hard Brexit, cabinet ministers have been warned.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Joelsim wrote:For anyone wondering just how much a hard Brexit is likely to cost you, circa £1,000 per person per annum. That's £4,000 less disposable income and/or tax/cuts before the increased costs of food, beer, holidays etc due to the collapse in Sterling.
To put even more into perspective, for a 40% tax payer with a wife and two kids that could be a pay cut of c.£11,000 per annum before increased costs of goods and services just to stand still.
Please click.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Happy f*cking days.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/7 ... 0712885248
Strangely, the figures in this scenario do not mention that there will be 3 million less people contributing to the GDP figure. Care to reproduce your figures taking that into account?
And when did total GDP become the be all and end all figure that demonstrates the health of the economy? Looks like the only way we achieved GDP 'growth' in recent years is through importing 300,000 people a year
Where have 3 million people disappeared to?
This is a poorly written article. This figure seems to assume the rate of growth will be 0.6% lower each year. Through the miracle of compound growth (see Einstein and strongest force in the universe, interest = growth) after 15 years you end up with a reduced tax take of £66bn. This is a figure net of our £8bn EU contribution.
To be honest this is nothing new. It was known all along and was deemed a price worth paying - it is only a net drop of £4.4bn a year.
The 3 million have not gone anywhere, they have just not migrated to the UK. (I'm not getting into a discussion on what immigration could be in 15 years time!)
So that is 300,000 people a year, ergo that is a 0.5% increase in UK population (roughly) which is almost exactly the lower growth rate figure you wrote. Calculate it on working age population and the figures are likely to cancel each other out.
Net migration from the EU is only 180,000 so assuming key workers etc you will at best knock 100,000 off the annual number. Even if you knocked 150,000 off it would no longer make your sums add up.
Why do it on working age population (genuine question) surely if anything you would do only dependents.
As this treasury document was requested by dear boy George to enhance his project fear projections we can safely discredit it and this article. As you say it is poorly written, and it is based on a worst case scenario request by George.
I think most of the Brexit leadership concede a 0.5% annual drop so it seems fairly conservative. The Times is just chosing how it shows the numbers for max impact.... if they said Brexit to cost us £4.4bn a year it would not be front page headlines
It isn't £4.4bn per year. It's £66bn per year in lower tax receipts. £66bn per year.
it is not a one off cost, so it is $4.4bn in year one, then £8.8bn in year two etc. This is because each year the economy is another 0.5% smaller than otherwise would have been.0 -
Joelsim wrote:From The Guardian article ( which I can copy and paste).
Treasury coffers may take a £66bn annual hit if Britain goes for a hard Brexit, cabinet ministers have been warned.
that is sh1t journalism
By 2015 Tresury coffers may be taking an annual hit of £66bn...0 -
Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:OK, found some readable links. Here's one from the Guardian to show I'm not biased
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/hard-brexit-treasury-66bn-eu-single-market
A few thoughts to play devils advocate:
1. It was a document produced during the referendum campaign
2. The £66bn is a worst case scenario (a range is quoted)
3. To get to that you have to assume that the forecast difference in growth rates between staying in and hard BREXIT is maintained over a 15 year period. Given economic forecasters can't typically get it right one year in advance and knowing the inherent un-forecastability of the future, that is a big ask.
I agree that over 15 years there will be so many variables that isolating individual factors becomes very difficult. However it is generally accepted that free trade with the EU is worth 0.5% growth per year. It would be very generous to assume that other factors would balance each other out.
As I said prevopusly £66bn is a scary number (why it was used) but in reality this is £4.4bn a year.
No it isn't. Read the article again. It's £66bn per year.
we are probably agreeing
the £66bn is in year 15... this is an easily derided number. Year 1 will be £4.4bn, year two £8.8bn etc. it is the same thing but less scary and far more believable.
Each year is not a one off hit. The economy will be 0.6% smaller than it otherwise would have been at the start of year two.0 -
Yes, and by the end of year 15 we'll have to made tax increases/service cuts and/or loan repayments potentially to the tune of £66bn + £61.6bn + £57.2bn...£4.4bn just to stand still. That's hundreds of billions of pounds.0
-
So, VTB and Morgan Stanley are the first banks to say there moving significant parts of their operations if we don't have free access. The quote is 'it's not complicated'.0
-
Surrey Commuter wrote:
However it is generally accepted that free trade with the EU is worth 0.5% growth per year.
Why is it that much of the EU isn't growing then?
Attempting to forecast growth in 15 years time is utterly misrepresentative. It's like asking a weather forecaster to forecast the weather in 5 years time. An honest one would tell you that simply isn't possible.
Evan Davis asked a number of questions of MPs when the £4k per year report was first published. Essentially, it excluded all possible upsides and took cautious views of everything else. It's misleading.0 -
Joelsim wrote:So, VTB and Morgan Stanley are the first banks to say there moving significant parts of their operations if we don't have free access. The quote is 'it's not complicated'.
What are they moving and to where?
Have they asked the staff? I know one partner at a law firm who said that the idea of moving from the City to Canary Wharf resulted in resignations being threaten all over the place.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Haha just saw this.
"Imagine if remain had won by 52% and they took that to mean a 'hard remain' ; Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage, the lot. People would go apeshit"
But that wasn't an option was it. And if it was, remain would have lost by a far larger margin.0 -
NorvernRob wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Haha just saw this.
"Imagine if remain had won by 52% and they took that to mean a 'hard remain' ; Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage, the lot. People would go apeshit"
But that wasn't an option was it. And if it was, remain would have lost by a far larger margin.
It was as much an option as any particular variety of leaving.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Joelsim wrote:So, VTB and Morgan Stanley are the first banks to say there moving significant parts of their operations if we don't have free access. The quote is 'it's not complicated'.
What are they moving and to where?
Have they asked the staff? I know one partner at a law firm who said that the idea of moving from the City to Canary Wharf resulted in resignations being threaten all over the place.
Most of VTB's lot aren't UK nationals anyway, in my experience. And I suspect their issue is they also don't welcome the scrutiny they'll get for some of the deals they've done in Mozambique.
---
Meanwhile, it begins: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ort-eea-eu
Eugh0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Joelsim wrote:So, VTB and Morgan Stanley are the first banks to say there moving significant parts of their operations if we don't have free access. The quote is 'it's not complicated'.
What are they moving and to where?
Have they asked the staff? I know one partner at a law firm who said that the idea of moving from the City to Canary Wharf resulted in resignations being threaten all over the place.
Isnt New York the winners from Brexit? banks might have issues relocating to Paris or Frankfurt but NY not such a hard choice.
Fujitsu have just announced 1800 UK job losses, they warned in Sept Brexit could cause them to quit UK........ this is shitte for us, as we do a heck of alot of contract work for them so will def have implications for our company, well done Coopster and you other wxxkxrs who never thought this through.0 -
And that's from a country who's main export market is us.
Jesus.
The 3 stooges.0 -
mamba80 wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Joelsim wrote:So, VTB and Morgan Stanley are the first banks to say there moving significant parts of their operations if we don't have free access. The quote is 'it's not complicated'.
What are they moving and to where?
Have they asked the staff? I know one partner at a law firm who said that the idea of moving from the City to Canary Wharf resulted in resignations being threaten all over the place.
Isnt New York the winners from Brexit? banks might have issues relocating to Paris or Frankfurt but NY not such a hard choice.
.
Wrong continent.
Need to be in the same timezone as Europe if you want to do business with Europe.0 -
mamba80 wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Joelsim wrote:So, VTB and Morgan Stanley are the first banks to say there moving significant parts of their operations if we don't have free access. The quote is 'it's not complicated'.
What are they moving and to where?
Have they asked the staff? I know one partner at a law firm who said that the idea of moving from the City to Canary Wharf resulted in resignations being threaten all over the place.
Isnt New York the winners from Brexit? banks might have issues relocating to Paris or Frankfurt but NY not such a hard choice.
Fujitsu have just announced 1800 UK job losses, they warned in Sept Brexit could cause them to quit UK........ this is shitte for us, as we do a heck of alot of contract work for them so will def have implications for our company, well done Coopster and you other wxxkxrs who never thought this through.
Sorry to hear that mate. I agree with you on the wxxkxrs descriptor.0 -
NorvernRob wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Haha just saw this.
"Imagine if remain had won by 52% and they took that to mean a 'hard remain' ; Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage, the lot. People would go apeshit"
But that wasn't an option was it. And if it was, remain would have lost by a far larger margin.
you are agreeing with him whilst at the same time totally missing his point0
