BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If the UK economy was doing so well to begin with I doubt you'd have had as many brexiters doing the nihilistic out vote.
UK has a genuine productivity problem and that's what Miliband etc were banging on about with their "standard of living" chat.
If productivity doesn't rise, people don't feel the GDP growth.
Arguably productivity should be THE most important stat for that reason.
That hasn't changed.
Rick - what could Remainers do to help the LibDems win the bye election? Can we channel cash directly to the constituency or do we need to bang on doors?
Plenty of people around to bangs on doors. Richmond is a nice place to walk around and mainly middle class.
Lib Dems are always short of money.
Here you go everybody - our chance to show May there as two side to the debate.
https://libdems.nationbuilder.com/richmond-park-donate0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:finchy wrote:verylonglegs wrote:I'm confused as to how Coopster has spent weeks pre and post referendum telling us we have a superb negociating position and plenty of leverage on the EU and then appears to celebrate the UK now likely offering sweeteners to companies to keep their factories here...surely an indication that our position isn't that strong at all. It can't be had both ways.
I think that Coopster may be an expert at doublethink. Just as he is also good at sneering at experts when they get a prediction wrong (such as how quickly the economy will be affected), but says nothing when they get it right (devaluation of sterling, reduced business investment, more QE, higher government deficit).
I will sneer at 'experts' whose predictions are wrong and whose incorrect predictions create unnecessary negativity and uncertainty in the UK economy. Why should I be happy to accept these influential 'experts' incorrectly talking down my countries economy?
If these 'independent experts' had been narrowly incorrect I could accept that, however they have allowed their 'independence' to be politicised and now have egg on their faces by being proved wrong. The fact they are hugely influential institutions just makes the whole lot stink more!
Carney and the BoE are perfect examples of what I am saying and I said so at the time. His and the BoE's post vote actions were IMO premature. This is becoming more apparent but had to be done to save the face and egos of Carney & BoE.
The fact so many supposedly intelligent people also fell for this politicised bulls**t must be an embarrassment to them and I'm sure is a contribution to the anger they still hold for the vote. I know I would be angry at being misled by those whom I have trusted to be telling the truth!
Nationalism again eh, do you own it personally?
Why do you trust anyone to tell the truth in the first place? Whatever happened to drawing your own conculsions? The currency devaluation sticks out as the main case in point. Economic uncertainty = fall in value of currency really isn't out there as a prediction, you don't need to read much history and economics to know that.0 -
verylonglegs wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:finchy wrote:verylonglegs wrote:I'm confused as to how Coopster has spent weeks pre and post referendum telling us we have a superb negociating position and plenty of leverage on the EU and then appears to celebrate the UK now likely offering sweeteners to companies to keep their factories here...surely an indication that our position isn't that strong at all. It can't be had both ways.
I think that Coopster may be an expert at doublethink. Just as he is also good at sneering at experts when they get a prediction wrong (such as how quickly the economy will be affected), but says nothing when they get it right (devaluation of sterling, reduced business investment, more QE, higher government deficit).
I will sneer at 'experts' whose predictions are wrong and whose incorrect predictions create unnecessary negativity and uncertainty in the UK economy. Why should I be happy to accept these influential 'experts' incorrectly talking down my countries economy?
If these 'independent experts' had been narrowly incorrect I could accept that, however they have allowed their 'independence' to be politicised and now have egg on their faces by being proved wrong. The fact they are hugely influential institutions just makes the whole lot stink more!
Carney and the BoE are perfect examples of what I am saying and I said so at the time. His and the BoE's post vote actions were IMO premature. This is becoming more apparent but had to be done to save the face and egos of Carney & BoE.
The fact so many supposedly intelligent people also fell for this politicised bulls**t must be an embarrassment to them and I'm sure is a contribution to the anger they still hold for the vote. I know I would be angry at being misled by those whom I have trusted to be telling the truth!
Nationalism again eh, do you own it personally?
Why do you trust anyone to tell the truth in the first place? Whatever happened to drawing your own conculsions? The currency devaluation sticks out as the main case in point. Economic uncertainty = fall in value of currency really isn't out there as a prediction, you don't need to read much history and economics to know that.
Reading that he seems to have more than one country0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:See my quotes above for what he said - all seems reasonable to me...
Q3 is Sept-Dec so too early to hang him for that.
Economic forecasts are more about trends than exact predictions. Can we agree that.
Brexit has not happened.
There are numerous gloomy quotes attributed to the BoE in the run up to the referendum. Unfortunately, they are not quantified or time-bound. So what we have is the Telegraph article I quoted from September.
In this it highlighted that shortly after the referendum result the BoE was predicting growth of 0.1% for Q3 which is July, August and September (*) and that by September, the BoE's forecast was up to 0.3%. But the actual Q3 growth was 0.5%.
(*) There's a chart in the article that tracks actual growth which clearly shows that the period being talked about in the calendar Q3 2016, as it has actuals for the period Q3 2016, so it's obviously not addressing Oct-Dec.
Hence what appears to be an uncontestable conclusion on my behalf that the BoE's forecasts for the period immediately after the vote were unduly pessimistic.
Anyway, Carney wasn't the target of my ire. He's an Osborne appointee and would ultimately have to do what his master wanted or kick off an unseemly row during the campaign period.
The doomsters who were predicting house price falls, stock market crashes and recessions immediately after a vote to leave are looking pretty stupid and have to rely on the fact that nasty Cameron didn't trigger Article 50 immediately. Surely anyone with half a brain could anticipate that not triggering Article 50 was a strong possibility which should be allowed for as a realistic scenario in any "professional" forecasts. As opposed to "amateur" forecasts provided by supposed professionals whose sole purpose was to scare the masses into voting the right way. (I produce financial forecasts for a living and if I employed the forecasting methodology and rigour that were common on the remain side, I'd most likely be sacked and probably be done for fraud!)
Just to emphasise, I'm only talking about forecasts that related to the period immediately after a vote to leave. Can we agree that the most pessimistic of these have been proven to be wrong? There's no recession, no stock market crash and no house price crash 4 months after the vote, so this should be easily agreed!
As to the long term, I voted to remain, into which you can read what you want about my view about the longer term outcomes from leaving the EU.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:See my quotes above for what he said - all seems reasonable to me...
Q3 is Sept-Dec so too early to hang him for that.
Economic forecasts are more about trends than exact predictions. Can we agree that.
Brexit has not happened.
There are numerous gloomy quotes attributed to the BoE in the run up to the referendum. Unfortunately, they are not quantified or time-bound. So what we have is the Telegraph article I quoted from September.
In this it highlighted that shortly after the referendum result the BoE was predicting growth of 0.1% for Q3 which is July, August and September (*) and that by September, the BoE's forecast was up to 0.3%. But the actual Q3 growth was 0.5%.
(*) There's a chart in the article that tracks actual growth which clearly shows that the period being talked about in the calendar Q3 2016, as it has actuals for the period Q3 2016, so it's obviously not addressing Oct-Dec.
Hence what appears to be an uncontestable conclusion on my behalf that the BoE's forecasts for the period immediately after the vote were unduly pessimistic.
Anyway, Carney wasn't the target of my ire. He's an Osborne appointee and would ultimately have to do what his master wanted or kick off an unseemly row during the campaign period.
The doomsters who were predicting house price falls, stock market crashes and recessions immediately after a vote to leave are looking pretty stupid and have to rely on the fact that nasty Cameron didn't trigger Article 50 immediately. Surely anyone with half a brain could anticipate that not triggering Article 50 was a strong possibility which should be allowed for as a realistic scenario in any "professional" forecasts. As opposed to "amateur" forecasts provided by supposed professionals whose sole purpose was to scare the masses into voting the right way. (I produce financial forecasts for a living and if I employed the forecasting methodology and rigour that were common on the remain side, I'd most likely be sacked and probably be done for fraud!)
Just to emphasise, I'm only talking about forecasts that related to the period immediately after a vote to leave. Can we agree that the most pessimistic of these have been proven to be wrong? There's no recession, no stock market crash and no house price crash 4 months after the vote, so this should be easily agreed!
As to the long term, I voted to remain, into which you can read what you want about my view about the longer term outcomes from leaving the EU.0 -
Sorry about the above - ios10 and this forum don't like one another.
The famous interview given by Carney a month before the vote is the one I quote above which has been more or less spot on.
There is too much rewriting of history so show me the forecast and I will agree or disagree. FYI a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth so show me that forecast and I will agree that they are an idiot with an agenda.
Financial forecasts are very different from economic forecasts which are more about direction of travel. A closer comparison would be year 5 of a 5 year plan, it is more about trends and strategy than accurate forecasting
Contemporary articles all thought we would leave "quickly" so if forecasting the impact of Brexit it seems reasonable to assume it would happen.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:The famous interview given by Carney a month before the vote is the one I quote above which has been more or less spot on.
...FYI a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth...
As I have said, Carney was at the more reasonable end of the pessimistic forecast scale. But whatever else the BoE predicted, unless the Telegraph article is wrong, they were predicting growth of 0.1% just over three months ago for Q3 against 0.5% out-turn. If you can accept that this forecast of 0.1% was simply wrong on the too pessimistic side then I will sleep easily, as you seem a reasonable type wouldn't argue that 0.1% = 0.5%, particularly when quarterly growth is almost guaranteed to be in a fairly tight range of -1% to +1%.
I know the definition of recession. Have I said anything to suggest otherwise? To have a 2nd quarter of consecutive negative growth you need a first quarter. So the "immediate recessions" that were predicted would presumably have been negative growth in Q3 and Q4 of 2016, which clearly isn't going to happen.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The famous interview given by Carney a month before the vote is the one I quote above which has been more or less spot on.
...FYI a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth...
As I have said, Carney was at the more reasonable end of the pessimistic forecast scale. But whatever else the BoE predicted, unless the Telegraph article is wrong, they were predicting growth of 0.1% just over three months ago for Q3 against 0.5% out-turn. If you can accept that this forecast of 0.1% was simply wrong on the too pessimistic side then I will sleep easily, as you seem a reasonable type wouldn't argue that 0.1% = 0.5%, particularly when quarterly growth is almost guaranteed to be in a fairly tight range of -1% to +1%.
I know the definition of recession. Have I said anything to suggest otherwise? To have a 2nd quarter of consecutive negative growth you need a first quarter. So the "immediate recessions" that were predicted would presumably have been negative growth in Q3 and Q4 of 2016, which clearly isn't going to happen.
Sorry I thought we we arguing about BofE, Carney and all the others being political pawns. But yes I would agree their forecasting skills aren't looking good at the moment which is obviously bad for their credibility. I assume you don't think they are giving deliberately nagative forecasts.
The range is very narrow so yes it is a big miss. I am a huge fan of an independent central bank and Carney so I hope there is an explanation or revision.
You have to concede that an immediate recession must have assumed an immediate exit. Fwiw I would still think that pessimistic even with a June 24th exit0 -
Isn't there a degree of uncertainty around growth results released immediately after the quarter?
For the record, I think it's perfectly acceptable to forecast the scenario where a50 is triggered straight away, even if just to show that it would be a bad idea. If the brexit campaign had come up with some sort of time plan, then by all means use that.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Read the BofE inflation report which is where these forecasts come from. Interesting that the total growth for 2016 remains unchanged as first half was stronger than they thought.
Reading the original avoids political bias but is hard work. For a synopsis try the overseas business publications.0 -
Jez mon wrote:Isn't there a degree of uncertainty around growth results released immediately after the quarter?
For the record, I think it's perfectly acceptable to forecast the scenario where a50 is triggered straight away, even if just to show that it would be a bad idea. If the brexit campaign had come up with some sort of time plan, then by all means use that.
Adjustments are common but at most 0.2%.
I still think the most important thing in that update was that manufacturing and construction contracted - it could be a signal of bad things to follow.0 -
Jez mon wrote:For the record, I think it's perfectly acceptable to forecast the scenario where a50 is triggered straight away...
True, but in my view it is unacceptable to present that as the only scenario re timing as a delay was eminently possible.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:...broadly excellent material...
I think we are as close to agreement as we're ever likely to get on the internet. Notwithstanding Joel's occasional rants (and probably my contributions) I think this is a high quality threat - much better than on several other forums I "lurk" on. Thanks to all contributors!0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Jez mon wrote:For the record, I think it's perfectly acceptable to forecast the scenario where a50 is triggered straight away...
True, but in my view it is unacceptable to present that as the only scenario re timing as a delay was eminently possible.
That is such a fundamental change that it would have required a third forecast.
Check articles at the time - nobody thought it would take months and certainly not nine of them. I think the powers that be outmanoeuvred the Brexiteers by throwing Cameron on his sword.
And I can find nobody at the time saying the forecasts were wrong because they assumed we would trigger A50 more or less immediately.
The more I read the more it is apparent there is a sustained attack on Carney. Rees Mogg is even being talked about as his replacement.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Jez mon wrote:For the record, I think it's perfectly acceptable to forecast the scenario where a50 is triggered straight away...
True, but in my view it is unacceptable to present that as the only scenario re timing as a delay was eminently possible.
That is such a fundamental change that it would have required a third forecast.
Check articles at the time - nobody thought it would take months and certainly not nine of them. I think the powers that be outmanoeuvred the Brexiteers by throwing Cameron on his sword.
And I can find nobody at the time saying the forecasts were wrong because they assumed we would trigger A50 more or less immediately.
The more I read the more it is apparent there is a sustained attack on Carney. Rees Mogg is even being talked about as his replacement.
Given that there are virtually infinite possbilities between staying in the Eu and triggering a50 straight away, it would have been quite challenging to forcast surely! Then trying to take into account whether we go for hard or soft Brexit.
If the leave side had come up with some sort of plan, then by all means the b of e should have come up with a forcast for that, but they didn't have any plan, so the Bank of England forcasts were based on the most obvious course of action in the event of a leave vote.
The brexiters saying "of course we were never gonna leave straight away, that would be stupid " do make me laugh somewhat. If leaving the eu is such a great idea why aren't you clamouring to invoke a50 asap?You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jez mon wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Jez mon wrote:For the record, I think it's perfectly acceptable to forecast the scenario where a50 is triggered straight away...
True, but in my view it is unacceptable to present that as the only scenario re timing as a delay was eminently possible.
That is such a fundamental change that it would have required a third forecast.
Check articles at the time - nobody thought it would take months and certainly not nine of them. I think the powers that be outmanoeuvred the Brexiteers by throwing Cameron on his sword.
And I can find nobody at the time saying the forecasts were wrong because they assumed we would trigger A50 more or less immediately.
The more I read the more it is apparent there is a sustained attack on Carney. Rees Mogg is even being talked about as his replacement.
Given that there are virtually infinite possbilities between staying in the Eu and triggering a50 straight away, it would have been quite challenging to forcast surely! Then trying to take into account whether we go for hard or soft Brexit.
If the leave side had come up with some sort of plan, then by all means the b of e should have come up with a forcast for that, but they didn't have any plan, so the Bank of England forcasts were based on the most obvious course of action in the event of a leave vote.
The brexiters saying "of course we were never gonna leave straight away, that would be stupid " do make me laugh somewhat. If leaving the eu is such a great idea why aren't you clamouring to invoke a50 asap?
The more I think about it the more I think Brexiteers are sheep led by ruthlessly clever propagandists.
How can you forecast the effects of Brexit without modelling it happening?
Carney never said those things and now the debate is when will he go and who will succeed him
What happened to the debate about Norway style agreement?
It is amazing that they can make this up safe in the knowledge that nobody will look back 6 months and read/watch what was actually said.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:The more I think about it the more I think Brexiteers are sheep led by ruthlessly clever propagandists.
How can you forecast the effects of Brexit without modelling it happening?
Carney never said those things and now the debate is when will he go and who will succeed him
What happened to the debate about Norway style agreement?
It is amazing that they can make this up safe in the knowledge that nobody will look back 6 months and read/watch what was actually said.
That's the current political discourse summed up isn't it.
Media and commentators happily ignore anything that was said six months ago if it suits the current agenda to do so - see most of the current govt vehemently opposing a third Heathrow runway a couple of years ago and now championing it like a born-again Christian, Gove on grammar schools and Kuennsberg et al parroting the line that Leave explicitly meant leaving the single market despite it being demonstrably untrue.
And any questioning of this is dismissed as moaning or missing the point.
It's very worrying.0 -
Interesting article in this weekend's FT along the same lines about why the advertising industry is struggling with Brexit and the US presidential race.
They're both "post-truth" campaigns where people are voting on gut instinct, and both campaigns have been more about the people than the facts. The Remain side tried to use facts and lost, Leave stuck to visceral but demonstrably untrue messages about returning 350m a week to the NHS and Turkey joining the EU and so on.
Political advertising: an industry in peril - https://www.ft.com/content/a81db6de-9c1 ... 63473ce146 via @FT0 -
Actually, my perception is that the looniest Brexiteers do want to invoke A50 straight away, to put the UK into an irreversible course, so that even if we saw the sh1t hitting the fan in six months' time, there would be no escape: it's not about pragmatics or economic wellbeing, it's a point of principle, worth any price, and it's why any genuine risk assessment forecasts are dismissed as doom mongering.Jez mon wrote:The brexiters saying "of course we were never gonna leave straight away, that would be stupid " do make me laugh somewhat. If leaving the eu is such a great idea why aren't you clamouring to invoke a50 asap?0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Actually, my perception is that the looniest Brexiteers do want to invoke A50 straight away, to put the UK into an irreversible course, so that even if we saw the sh1t hitting the fan in six months' time, there would be no escape: it's not about pragmatics or economic wellbeing, it's a point of principle, worth any price, and it's why any genuine risk assessment forecasts are dismissed as doom mongering.Jez mon wrote:The brexiters saying "of course we were never gonna leave straight away, that would be stupid " do make me laugh somewhat. If leaving the eu is such a great idea why aren't you clamouring to invoke a50 asap?
Agreed. But (maybe stupidly) I almost respect that position more than someone saying sure we should invoke A50, not for a while though...
Maybe it's because I haven't been playing close enough attention, but the economic reality of leaving the world's largest trading block is gonna be pretty similar either way. The only key item on the to do list for the government is to install a crack team of trade negotiators and then get on with treading in the dog turd that is invoking A50. Putting it off is just extending the period of (that word that businesses hate) uncertainty.
I might understand it if it looked like we were gonna have a serious and open debate about what our relationship to the eu should be going forward. But if there is any debate on that, it's occuring well behind closed doors.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Should we tell these people to stop worrying?Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:Isn't there a degree of uncertainty around growth results released immediately after the quarter?
For the record, I think it's perfectly acceptable to forecast the scenario where a50 is triggered straight away, even if just to show that it would be a bad idea. If the brexit campaign had come up with some sort of time plan, then by all means use that.
Adjustments are common but at most 0.2%.
I still think the most important thing in that update was that manufacturing and construction contracted - it could be a signal of bad things to follow.0 -
narbs wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The more I think about it the more I think Brexiteers are sheep led by ruthlessly clever propagandists.
How can you forecast the effects of Brexit without modelling it happening?
Carney never said those things and now the debate is when will he go and who will succeed him
What happened to the debate about Norway style agreement?
It is amazing that they can make this up safe in the knowledge that nobody will look back 6 months and read/watch what was actually said.
That's the current political discourse summed up isn't it.
Media and commentators happily ignore anything that was said six months ago if it suits the current agenda to do so - see most of the current govt vehemently opposing a third Heathrow runway a couple of years ago and now championing it like a born-again Christian, Gove on grammar schools and Kuennsberg et al parroting the line that Leave explicitly meant leaving the single market despite it being demonstrably untrue.
And any questioning of this is dismissed as moaning or missing the point.
It's very worrying.
An interesting comparison would be the 10 mins it took people to shoot down Brailsford's explanation for the secret package.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Should we tell these people to stop worrying?Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:Isn't there a degree of uncertainty around growth results released immediately after the quarter?
For the record, I think it's perfectly acceptable to forecast the scenario where a50 is triggered straight away, even if just to show that it would be a bad idea. If the brexit campaign had come up with some sort of time plan, then by all means use that.
Adjustments are common but at most 0.2%.
I still think the most important thing in that update was that manufacturing and construction contracted - it could be a signal of bad things to follow.
Nope those people are reaping what they sowed - and would sneer at your so called expert opinion.
They were told by Vote Leave that there would be a 14 year cost to Brexit. Who did they think were going to suffer? Major landowners? Telegraph columnists? retired bond traders? Or maybe MPs?0 -
Aha. John Redwood has completely stopped me worrying. This is what he's saying to the Chancellor:
"...the forecasts are clearly going to be wrong. I think Hammond has a real problem because if the Office for Budget Responsibility follows this nonsensical gloom they will present him with less tax revenue. I would suggest he ignores them. It would be a huge mistake."0 -
My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
bendertherobot wrote:
Good news that he is staying on an extra year or bad news that he leaves two years early.
It is a sad day for the UK when a man who is very good at his job is hounded out by a bunch of crooked has beens.0 -
What does everybody think about the Nissan deal? Assuming they export £10bn each year and the tariff is set at 10% then we have just spent 3 hospitals on one foreign car firm. Or if 40,000 jobs were at stake we could have paid them £25k a year to sit at home.
They reckon UK car exports are worth £25bn - to compensate them all we would need to put the basic rate of tax up 1%. That is just one industry. Add up all the promises to carry on paying everybody in receipt of EU grants and it starts to look worrying.
I know May can only play the cards she was dealt but we are starting to look phenomenally bad at negotiating.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:What does everybody think about the Nissan deal? Assuming they export £10bn each year and the tariff is set at 10% then we have just spent 3 hospitals on one foreign car firm. Or if 40,000 jobs were at stake we could have paid them £25k a year to sit at home.
They reckon UK car exports are worth £25bn - to compensate them all we would need to put the basic rate of tax up 1%. That is just one industry. Add up all the promises to carry on paying everybody in receipt of EU grants and it starts to look worrying.
I know May can only play the cards she was dealt but we are starting to look phenomenally bad at negotiating.
Depends on what the tariff is set at doesn't it! If I'm reading it correctly the government has signed a blank cheque though?
Be interesting to compare the costs of this handout to the potential costs of stepping in Port Talbot or Redcar?You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
What are the terms of the deal?0
-
KingstonGraham wrote:What are the terms of the deal?
They are refusing to release the details but have assured Nissan that they will be no worse off post-Brexit. You can see how much they export to the EU and the widely touted figure of 10% as the likely tariff.0
