Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Alf Bentley]

Looking beyond short-term market fluctuations, Newsnight quoted a few medium-term real economy indicators.

 

It's still very early days and a lot could change, but they sounded pessimistic. I wasn't taking notes but the gist was....

- Consensus of growth forecasters anticipated 0.5% drop in growth expected this year, 1.7% drop next year

- If output was lost at these levels, this would outweigh savings on EU contributions (the famous £350m per week) 2-3 times over, with obvious implications for the deficit/debt and/or public spending cuts and/or tax rises

- Surveys of business confidence reported a marked rise in expectations of non-recruitment, redundancies & postponement of investment

 

If the fall in UK credit ratings feeds through into higher interest on commercial borrowing (DK if that's inevitable?), that would also undermine business investment, growth & profits.

 

Then add in the likelihood of continued uncertainty over even the broad terms of Brexit lasting at least until a new PM is appointed in Sept (possibly much longer), that sounds like a very negative cocktail lasting a number of months.....or 2-3 years, if the UK/EU negotiations over Brexit prove tough. I suppose in itself that gives an incentive to both the UK and the EU to try to reach terms quickly so as to minimise damage to all parties. But that might be easier said than done.

 

My understanding then is that: (1) If we leave the single market, negotiations over future UK/EU trade deals wouldn't start until AFTER the Brexit deal was completed (2-3 years time?); (2) Likewise, the UK couldn't negotiate new trade deals with existing EU trade partners until it left the EU (except on basic WTO terms, generally much inferior to the EU's deals with third party countries).

 

On a slightly less bleak note, there seemed to be glimpses of potential flexibility over "free movement", particularly in an interview with the French Finance Minister (DK whether his position would be followed by the rest of the EU). He seemed to be expecting a quid pro quo, though. I may have been misreading it, but there may have been an implication that the French might be flexible on "free movement" in exchange for the Brits flexibly allowing Paris to take a chunk out of the City of London finance sector!! The Newsnight analysts also seemed to think that the EU27 might be flexible on reform of "free movement" for their own political reasons - concerns over the economic & social impact of immigration in their own countries, rise of Far Right etc.

 

Very early days, but that all seems to suggest that we might end up much worse off economically in the medium-term, with further strains on public finances/spending/tax, lower growth, higher unemployment, trade depressed for several years.....but a better chance than expected to cut immigration. All in all, a scenario that would suit UKIP a damn sight better than the Tory Brexit people who'd be running the economy and the nation (or Labour, if they miraculously ended up in power via an early election)!

[Vardinio'sCat]

This is amazing recovery , it's a bounce

But a bounce all the same

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36660133

 

Dead cat bounce?

[Vardinio'sCat]

 The IFS estimated a cost of between 20 and 40 billion a year, and they are the most respected voice in British economic forecasting.

 

PS The crucial stock market for UK business is the FTSE-250, not the FTSE-100.

[Jon the Hat]

This is amazing recovery , it's a bounce

But a bounce all the same

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36660133

 

How is it a bounce?  The FTSE 100 was higher on Friday than on Tuesday no?  The FTSE 250 is still lower of course, and that is more a reflection on British businesses rather than global ones, but still.  There was an over reaction as people bet on one way and it went the other.  Not a long term considered view, just people who bet on one thing taking their money out having lost.

[Jon the Hat]

 The IFS estimated a cost of between 20 and 40 billion a year, and they are the most respected voice in British economic forecasting.

 

PS The crucial stock market for UK business is the FTSE-250, not the FTSE-100.

 

For a minute there I thought you said respected voice and economic forecasting in the same sentence!  Good one!

Economists hate uncertainty, you give them uncertainty and they to a man will be pessimistic.  This is not news.

[Jon the Hat]

People keep banging on about how we ignored the facts in the referendum, but in the same sentence tell us there weren't any facts about leaving.  Lets me honest, there weren't any facts at all, only opinions.  You could argue we have facts on immigration, but that wasn't what drove most people to vote leave in the first place.

[m4DD0gg]

This is amazing recovery , it's a bounce

But a bounce all the same

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36660133

 

Exactly and a lot of people have made some serious money off that including yep thats right big UK based investors and pension funds that apparently are doomed now we are not in EU.

[Guest]

You could argue we have facts on immigration, but that wasn't what drove most people to vote leave in the first place.

That's debatable. Depends on your stance I guess and whether you think the videos/interviews with people we've seen since are an accurate representation of the issues that people were voting on.

Certainly not all leave voters but I'd imagine it's a big issue for many.

[Thracian]

Looking beyond short-term market fluctuations, Newsnight quoted a few medium-term real economy indicators.

 

It's still very early days and a lot could change, but they sounded pessimistic. I wasn't taking notes but the gist was....

- Consensus of growth forecasters anticipated 0.5% drop in growth expected this year, 1.7% drop next year

- If output was lost at these levels, this would outweigh savings on EU contributions (the famous £350m per week) 2-3 times over, with obvious implications for the deficit/debt and/or public spending cuts and/or tax rises

- Surveys of business confidence reported a marked rise in expectations of non-recruitment, redundancies & postponement of investment

 

If the fall in UK credit ratings feeds through into higher interest on commercial borrowing (DK if that's inevitable?), that would also undermine business investment, growth & profits.

 

Then add in the likelihood of continued uncertainty over even the broad terms of Brexit lasting at least until a new PM is appointed in Sept (possibly much longer), that sounds like a very negative cocktail lasting a number of months.....or 2-3 years, if the UK/EU negotiations over Brexit prove tough. I suppose in itself that gives an incentive to both the UK and the EU to try to reach terms quickly so as to minimise damage to all parties. But that might be easier said than done.

 

My understanding then is that: (1) If we leave the single market, negotiations over future UK/EU trade deals wouldn't start until AFTER the Brexit deal was completed (2-3 years time?); (2) Likewise, the UK couldn't negotiate new trade deals with existing EU trade partners until it left the EU (except on basic WTO terms, generally much inferior to the EU's deals with third party countries).

 

On a slightly less bleak note, there seemed to be glimpses of potential flexibility over "free movement", particularly in an interview with the French Finance Minister (DK whether his position would be followed by the rest of the EU). He seemed to be expecting a quid pro quo, though. I may have been misreading it, but there may have been an implication that the French might be flexible on "free movement" in exchange for the Brits flexibly allowing Paris to take a chunk out of the City of London finance sector!! The Newsnight analysts also seemed to think that the EU27 might be flexible on reform of "free movement" for their own political reasons - concerns over the economic & social impact of immigration in their own countries, rise of Far Right etc.

 

Very early days, but that all seems to suggest that we might end up much worse off economically in the medium-term, with further strains on public finances/spending/tax, lower growth, higher unemployment, trade depressed for several years.....but a better chance than expected to cut immigration. All in all, a scenario that would suit UKIP a damn sight better than the Tory Brexit people who'd be running the economy and the nation (or Labour, if they miraculously ended up in power via an early election)!

 

Ummmmm not sure I'd ever be convinced by inevitably selective economic assessments by the biased, EU-supported BBC

 

Did Newsnight make any mention of fracking?

 

I've talked of it previously because the potential is absolutely huge, onshore and, later,  offshore, both for income and for jobs.

 

The Americans already seem to be benefitting massively and Cameron seems no less enthusiastic. It also seems to me that the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks which have mostly proved manageable and increasingly so as the technology so rapidly evolves.  

 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/03/economic-benefits-of-fracking

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9209946/UK-could-become-one-of-worlds-biggest-shale-gas-producers.html

 

I'm actually amazed by the guesswork economic negatives when there is so much potential out there in the global market. That includes Europe because it is nonsense for anyone to imagine our trading with the EU suddenly disappearing, even with tariffs, and that's without any of the EU implosion I feel certain of sooner rather than later.

 

Indeed the irony is that the EU is suddenly talking much more flexibly in relation to free movement.

 

It doesn't matter to me because I don't trust them, their motives or their commitment. Who would ever trust the likes of the bullying Juncker and his pathetic assertion that we can change things from the inside? Indeed we seem to have shifted their attitude more by moving outside than we ever did from within. 

 

But I do wonder why they weren't flexible before we left and will venture the opinion that its down to their own fast-increasing fears of implosion. But implosion there will be and how might that affect any economic negatives?.

 

Because others will fast come to realise that they can have a pan-European trading market without the surrendering of national sovereignty and a nation's right to shape its own future, and a good job too because EU moulding has been increasingly catastrophic and its impact is getting worse by the day.

 

But in the end, if it's what some Europeans believe in, they can keep it and the best of luck to them. I wish them no ill but sure don't want to drive in the same bus. I don't contest that the forecasts you highlight might prove accurate but history shows that's by no means certain.

 

And right now the potential variables seem greater than ever to the point where it's impossible to paint a full and accurate picture however hard we try because we're all standing on rapidly shifting sands.

 

Finance houses might think of re-centreing on Paris or Dublin but I don't think I'd be in such a hurry given the state of some European economies.  

 

Because, to me, for all the dark rumblings, it's the EU that's stranded on the treacherous Dogger Bank and the UK that's swum clear and is grasping the lifebelt of independence and global opportunity.         

[Alf Bentley]

Ummmmm not sure I'd ever be convinced by inevitably selective economic assessments by the biased, EU-supported BBC

 

Did Newsnight make any mention of fracking?

 

 

 

No, Newsnight didn't mention fracking (though it's been discussed in the past) or any specific economic sector. It was looking at economic prospects more generally.

 

Obviously, it's very early days to be making economic forecasts, good or bad. Lots of factors are still unknown - or may be changed by policy interventions in the UK or on the continent.

 

The forecasts mentioned weren't compiled by "the biased, EU-supported BBC", but comprised business surveys and forecasts by a number of different third parties....though they could still be wrong, of course. Most forecasts are!

 

If the BBC is such a nest of biased lefties and pessimists, I wonder why they were suggesting that France/EU might be more flexible than expected on immigration / freedom of movement?

 

I'll leave it there, Thracian, as we're obviously miles apart on who/what we believe - and the whole situation is still massively unclear, anyway.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Newsnight is anything but biased - it's one of the best political programmes out there, alongside This Week. In fact, I dare say Newsnight has improved considerably since Paxman's departure.

[Alf Bentley]

Newsnight is anything but biased - it's one of the best political programmes out there, alongside This Week. In fact, I dare say Newsnight has improved considerably since Paxman's departure.

 

 

Strongly agree with that. Paxman might have provided more entertainment (in a repetitive way), blustering at everyone and implying they're all crooks, but Evan Davis & co offer a lot more enlightenment.

 

Andrew Neil is excellent on This Week, too. Both Davis & Neil cut through with proper analysis and challenge people of every political persuasion (Davis more gently, Neil more bluntly).

[bovril]

Interesting piece by Gary Younge in the (metropolitan, educated, liberal, elitist, working-class-hating) Guardian today. I liked this quote from Marx he included:

“Every industrial and commercial centre in England possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life … This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes.”

 

Plus ça change...

[Ross-Kemp]

Boris announces he won't run for PM.

[Thracian]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/683215/EU-chaos-Sweden-emergency-meeting-referendum-Brexit?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=recommendations&utm_term=paid&utm_content=dx-news-showbiz&utm_campaign=2016

[leicsmac]

Ummmmm not sure I'd ever be convinced by inevitably selective economic assessments by the biased, EU-supported BBC

 

Did Newsnight make any mention of fracking?

 

I've talked of it previously because the potential is absolutely huge, onshore and, later,  offshore, both for income and for jobs.

 

The Americans already seem to be benefitting massively and Cameron seems no less enthusiastic. It also seems to me that the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks which have mostly proved manageable and increasingly so as the technology so rapidly evolves.  

 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/03/economic-benefits-of-fracking

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9209946/UK-could-become-one-of-worlds-biggest-shale-gas-producers.html

 

I'm actually amazed by the guesswork economic negatives when there is so much potential out there in the global market. That includes Europe because it is nonsense for anyone to imagine our trading with the EU suddenly disappearing, even with tariffs, and that's without any of the EU implosion I feel certain of sooner rather than later.

 

Indeed the irony is that the EU is suddenly talking much more flexibly in relation to free movement.

 

It doesn't matter to me because I don't trust them, their motives or their commitment. Who would ever trust the likes of the bullying Juncker and his pathetic assertion that we can change things from the inside? Indeed we seem to have shifted their attitude more by moving outside than we ever did from within. 

 

But I do wonder why they weren't flexible before we left and will venture the opinion that its down to their own fast-increasing fears of implosion. But implosion there will be and how might that affect any economic negatives?.

 

Because others will fast come to realise that they can have a pan-European trading market without the surrendering of national sovereignty and a nation's right to shape its own future, and a good job too because EU moulding has been increasingly catastrophic and its impact is getting worse by the day.

 

But in the end, if it's what some Europeans believe in, they can keep it and the best of luck to them. I wish them no ill but sure don't want to drive in the same bus. I don't contest that the forecasts you highlight might prove accurate but history shows that's by no means certain.

 

And right now the potential variables seem greater than ever to the point where it's impossible to paint a full and accurate picture however hard we try because we're all standing on rapidly shifting sands.

 

Finance houses might think of re-centreing on Paris or Dublin but I don't think I'd be in such a hurry given the state of some European economies.  

 

Because, to me, for all the dark rumblings, it's the EU that's stranded on the treacherous Dogger Bank and the UK that's swum clear and is grasping the lifebelt of independence and global opportunity.         

 

Really? The drawbacks of fracking are 'manageable'?

 

Fracking is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. We've discussed this before. As an addenum, it would only be a short term solution that would do nothing for our or the worlds long term energy needs anyway.

[Guest MattP]

Newsnight is anything but biased - it's one of the best political programmes out there, alongside This Week. In fact, I dare say Newsnight has improved considerably since Paxman's departure.

 

Thirded. The BBC has covered politics brilliantly over the last couple of years, the accusations of bias are long gone (cybernats aside) and they have a top team with Kuenssberg, Davis, Matlis, Neil, Pienaar etc

 

Back on topic this is a good read that a friend sent me today.

 

https://medium.com/@oliverhumpage/i-want-to-stop-something-exploitative-divisive-and-dishonest-conversation-with-a-leaver-af77afb1773f#.vsc021gm0

[Dodgy Bob]

You could argue we have facts on immigration, but that wasn't what drove most people to vote leave in the first place.

Come on, 80% of the leave campaign's rhetoric was based on immigration.

[johnny the fox]

Newsnight is anything but biased - it's one of the best political programmes out there, alongside This Week. In fact, I dare say Newsnight has improved considerably since Paxman's departure.

the BBC as a whole has been very bias over the referendum campaign ..the subtle slanting of stories for remain has been totally out of order..

[jammie82uk]

Come on, 80% of the leave campaign's rhetoric was based on immigration.

really? I thought according to remain campaigners it was solely based on "£350 million why don't we fund the nhs"

[Thracian]

They might well be suggesting it as a means of arguing we could yet remain in the EU and still imagine we're getting our own way - the "remaining" being the BBC's clear preference.

 

Here's another story I've read today from the BBC:     http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629. 

 

They never let up in big ways and extremely subtle ways they constantly emphasise their point of view over that of others.

 

Before and and since the referendum they've constantly pushed stories and opinions that paint "Remain" in a positive light and "Leave" as being negative when the reality is just as arguably the opposite.

 

I agree the situation is unclear and like you am prepared to admit it and say so.

 

But the BBC never stop promoting their agenda and I fail to see how anyone could consider them independent or constructive honest brokers when they are so clearly sponsored by the EU in all sorts of directions which might be called questionable by some.

 

I know the forecasts you mentioned weren't compiled by the BBC and entirely respect your referring to them, as I 100% respect all your comments.

 

The point I was making was that the BBC forever looks for and refers to pessimistic forecasts when both you and I recognise that many if not most forecasts are wrong, all need properly examining and it's important to balance the given impression when there are other,  perhaps equally credible arguments when you are supposed to be presenting the facts of an argument as best you can.

 

I've not done it before but just key in "BBC bias continues" and see the number of references there are.

 

This is just one small, random example of many:  https://euobserver.com/news/2195

[Thracian]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/684654/Austria-warns-European-Union-of-impending-breakup-after-migrant-mistakes

[Guest MattP]

really? I thought according to remain campaigners it was solely based on "£350 million why don't we fund the nhs"

 

It's whatever suits the argument they are putting forward at the time, think we've all worked that out by now.

[Thracian]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/684282/Germany-Eu-referendum-Dexit-Brexit-Angela-Merkel-european-union

[bovril]

Thirded. The BBC has covered politics brilliantly over the last couple of years, the accusations of bias are long gone (cybernats aside) and they have a top team with Kuenssberg, Davis, Matlis, Neil, Pienaar etc

 

Back on topic this is a good read that a friend sent me today.

 

https://medium.com/@oliverhumpage/i-want-to-stop-something-exploitative-divisive-and-dishonest-conversation-with-a-leaver-af77afb1773f#.vsc021gm0

 

Nice article and raises some good points. But misses some others, I feel. "It’s very hard to fight NHS privatisation at home if the EU is constantly pushing for privatisation". Any evidence that the EU is 'pushing' us to privatise the NHS against the will of the British people? "For the people I’m talking about, immigration was an immediate and important problem affecting jobs, housing and facilities", and yet, and yet, this has never truly been backed up by evidence. Outside of London, 3% of the population are EU migrants. Many of the leave areas had experienced very little immigration.

Anyway, I was hoping after the ref. we'd get the old on-your-bike Tory MattP back, whose posts I liked much more than all this man-of-the-people guff. (smiley winky thing).