The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I think this is a really good idea FWIW,  could be genius ? It could create genuine community spirit and all that since it is self contained.  (The Ireland / Spain thing was timing / bad luck I suppose and could still happen)

I have concerns about the surrounding roads ... both villages will only really be served by the Chertsey junction of the M25 so that could get fruity around there during peak times  ..unless of course they can self contain jobs and schools as they propose and everyone can walk to work / school

I go out to Amsterlveen  for work quite often  and  the area around my supplier there is kind of a mini version of what's been planned  , almost like Sim city , with square blocks of houses , then some park land , then the obligatory canal , cycle paths , then shops .. I'll be honest I always cast an envious eye over it , even from my limited time there you sorta pickup the sense of a community .. If they can pull something similar off then it could be great ... but this is the UK government so that's a rather large IF

[Chindie]

Quote

A hard-Brexit is the dream of many on the Leave side of the referendum. It allows them to imagine a situation where the UK, free from any encumbrances, launches into a world of free trade and investment deals.

Such a world, however, is likely to see Eastern European companies given better treatment than major commercial partners in the West, a swap of the supposed dominion of European Courts for that of investment tribunals, and a labyrinth of interlocking agreements that rapidly raise protections for foreign companies above those available to local ones. An interesting prize for leaving the EU indeed.

The Conversation

Interesting read.

[Enda]

7 hours ago, Chindie said:

The Conversation

Interesting read.

That was interesting, thanks. I also liked The Economist's piece this week on the "tortuous" WTO option.

Re: "oh he's a miserable so and so, good riddance to him thinking Brexit isn't a great thing" resignation, it absolutely reeks of Ireland just before 2008. Anyone suggesting there was a housing bubble was told they weren't being patriotic, that they should pull on the green jersey, or go jump off a bridge. It's the exact same thing happening again; people who are raising legitimate concerns (even if incorrect) are being pushed aside. That's unlikely to end well.

On a tangent, there's an under-emphasised disconnect between the narrative that Brexit was a lashing out after years of austerity and growing inequality, and that suddenly everything in the UK will be fine if you can strike all these wonderful free trade deals with China and India. Those free trade deals will increase growth, but also likely exacerbate inequality. We've learned that free trade generates wealth, but that wealth largely skips over working-class people in rich countries. That wealth should be redistributed. With the Tories in power, and the promise of free trade deals, and an already discontent populace, what could possibly go wrong?

[Enda]

Oh and one last thing on the economics predictions. As Awol is so keen to reference, the most pessimistic mainline projection for post-Brexit economy was the Treasury's. If I'm not mistaken, they predicted that post-Brexit UK GDP would be 1.5% lower (than it would be without Brexit) after eighteen months. That's not the dire prediction the media are portraying it as.

As for Haldane's comment that short-term forecasting is in trouble, he's completely right. FWIW I've a PhD on the topic myself and agree that area is ad hoc and not very trustworthy. What is much better understood is the effect of trade. Exiting the single market (or any deal which makes trade harder) will certainly hurt the UK economy in the long run.

[chrisp65]

40 minutes ago, Enda said:

I've a PhD on the topic 

So, to summarise, you're something of an expert. From europe.

[tonyh29]

More Brexit bad news  

 

 

Britain ended last year as the strongest of the world’s advanced economies with growth accelerating in the six months after the Brexit vote, it was revealed yesterday.

Business activity hit a 17-month high last month, meaning that the economy grew by 2.2 per cent last year — more than the six other leading nations, including the US, Germany and Japan.

Far from slowing after the referendum in June, as predicted by the Treasury and Bank of England, growth appeared to have improved. GDP grew at 0.3 per cent and 0.6 per cent in the first two quarters of last year, compared with 0.6 per cent and an estimated 0.5 in the final period

[StefanAVFC]

We're still in the EU.

[brommy]

I recall a campaign warning of instant damage to the UK economy. Even those who voted leave that I have spoken to, expect there to be some affect on the UK economy during the exit itself. Only time will tell what the effect is and how long it will last. After that we'll all be able to debate whether the 'cost' was worth it; a subjective soup further clouded by guesses of how bad or good the UK would have been if we'd remained.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

We're still in the EU.

True. If the UK economy slows down this year as seems likely, I'm sure no one will try to blame Brexit. Not at all. 

[Chindie]

This year Brexit should actually start to solidify, and then it would be perfectly acceptable to say damage to the economy could sit at it's feet.

[brommy]

How easy will it be to decide what any effect on the economy is directly because of the referendum result? It's not like we can run a control experiment where the UK remains for comparison purposes. Similar economies improve and stagnate, often at unexpected rates, with or without major changes.

Economic markets usually don't like change so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if there is some effect. It will be a long journey so it will take years afterwards to assess whether it was worth it. Even then we won't exactly know what mess or otherwise we'd have been in if we had remained.

[blandy]

11 hours ago, Awol said:

True. If the UK economy slows down this year as seems likely, I'm sure no one will try to blame Brexit. Not at all. 

This last 6 months or so, where the UK economy has done goodish.  What's  been the reason? Is it people voting to leave the EU, though no steps have yet been taken to follow up on that vote? Is it the fall in the pound resulting from market reaction to the vote? Is it the measures taken by the BoE to mitigate some of the potential consequences of reaction to the vote? Is it the removal of the fool Osborne and the announcement by Hammond that he was scrapping the fool Osborne's idiot fiscal rules? Is it troubles in the Euro zone leading people to view the UK as a safer destination for their money? Is it Trump?

It's probably a bit of all of them, most of which are only tangentially related to leaving the EU if at all.

Once A50 is triggered and the status of the negotiations and business reaction to it starts to take effect, then much more weight can fairly be attributed to the consequences of the vote AND ACTIONS for leaving the EU.

To date no EU leaving stuff has been done, other than the govt making promises to Nissan.

[tonyh29]

All fair comment but as remoaners have jumped on every piece  of bad news as proof of the stupidity of the 52 it seemed only fair to highlight some good news.

as brommy points out how do you correlate cause other than the obvious , by which I mean when the UK economy went bad it was because of a global recession and nothing to do with fiscal policy of brown and Darling , when the UK economy out performed most of The world is was because of something else and nothing to do with fiscal policy of Osborne and Cameron

so I think we all know how it's going to play out 

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

as brommy points out how do you correlate cause other than the obvious , by which I mean when the UK economy went bad it was because of a global recession and nothing to do with fiscal policy of brown and Darling , when the UK economy out performed most of The world is was because of something else and nothing to do with fiscal policy of Osborne and Cameron

What you do is make the argument about how something may have led to something else. You analyse events, data and policy and put a case based upon facts, data and reasoning and see whether that case stands up to scrutiny.

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

There are a number of possible reasons why the economy is doing 'well' (still way, way below the growth rate we regarded as 'normal' for almost the entire post-war period, let's not forget). The primary reason appears to be the service sector doing well, and retail performing very well. This is seen in an increase of personal indebtedness to levels not seen since the financial crisis. Chris Giles in the FT:

'In fact, we know the predominant source of error. It stemmed from underestimating the strength of household consumption after the vote for Brexit. Economists expected a vote to leave would increase household savings in the short term, both as precautionary insurance against uncertainty and to begin an adjustment to a less prosperous future.

These were reasonable guesses, based on recent household behaviour — for example, at the time of huge banking uncertainty early in 2008. But rather than rising, household savings fell throughout 2016. The savings ratio dropped to an exceptionally low level in the third quarter as consumers went on a borrowing and spending binge not seen since before the financial crisis.

The interesting question is why households acted in this way. There are three plausible reasons. First, households correctly thought Brexit would improve their personal finances and borrowed and spent accordingly. Second, they were deceived into expecting economic gains from Brexit and still went out to spend. And, third, households watched sterling tumble, understood the likely effect on prices and brought forward their consumption, so they were spending in the knowledge their money would buy less in future.

Economic analysis allows us to set out these possibilities; it tells us only the last of the three options is sustainable; but it does not yet inform us which is correct.'

https://www.ft.com/content/15837254-d272-11e6-b06b-680c49b4b4c0

[brommy]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

What you do is make the argument about how something may have led to something else. You analyse events, data and policy and put a case based upon facts, data and reasoning and see whether that case stands up to scrutiny.

 

Economic history is littered with analysis that stands up to scrutiny to some and not to others.

Beside the how much, if any, will the economy be affected, there will be those who think some price to pay will be worthwhile.

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The interesting question is why households acted in this way. There are three plausible reasons. First, households correctly thought Brexit would improve their personal finances and borrowed and spent accordingly. Second, they were deceived into expecting economic gains from Brexit and still went out to spend. And, third, households watched sterling tumble, understood the likely effect on prices and brought forward their consumption, so they were spending in the knowledge their money would buy less in future.

Wow! That's an almost bizarre understanding of your basic UK household - are economists so removed from reality that they think your basic citizen thinks in these sort of economic straight lines? 

The fourth and more plausible theory is that most households don't really see how the larger economic picture really has any great effect on them so carried on doing what they always do.

Money has been concentrated in so few hands that the actual effect of larger woes with the economy tends to be felt by banks and by corporations much more than by householders - for most people,  the economic effect of brexit will have had absolutely no impact whatsoever on whether the kids got a playstation for christmas or mom bought a new car - "the economy" as described by economists has become a bubble of money that barely relates to households at all.

Brexit will have had less effect on the average UK household's spending ideas than the John Lewis christmas advert or the launch of the new Star Wars movie and associated lego toys.

 

[PompeyVillan]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

All fair comment but as remoaners... 

Tony, I know my following point is unrelated to the point you were making, and you were being tongue-in-cheek but your use of 'remoaners' allows me to make a point I've been pondering (which isn't really directed at your or anyone on VT, just in general). 

It's important in my opinion to remember that regardless of whether someone is a red, a blue, a yellow or an 'in'  or an 'out' there is commonality in the key underlying issues that underpin both sides of the debate. 

My feeling is that both sides,  pro and anti Brexit are concerned about the same issues. A lack of work, job security, low wages, younger generations being poorer than older, declining public services. Inequality. 

It's just that both sides see different solutions. 

The government needs to recognise this and more broadly we do too. So really there aren't really two 'sides' as there is in a general election, because we all know with with GE we get a chance to change in 4 years time. Brexit will be a one off and it won't be benched like a manifesto pledge can be, it's certainly happening. 

So whilst I know 'Remoaners' is tongue in cheek and it doesn't offend me, I do think we need to careful to not polarise this debate too much. Because I suggest the electorate want the same things, but they just can't agree on how to get them.  

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

33 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The fourth and more plausible theory is that most households don't really see how the larger economic picture really has any great effect on them so carried on doing what they always do.

That's basically scenario one, ie. household's financial positions were improving and households didn't see any need to alter plans as a result of Brexit. 

35 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Money has been concentrated in so few hands that the actual effect of larger woes with the economy tends to be felt by banks and by corporations much more than by householders - for most people,  the economic effect of brexit will have had absolutely no impact whatsoever on whether the kids got a playstation for christmas or mom bought a new car - "the economy" as described by economists has become a bubble of money that barely relates to households at all.

Your first sentence is so bizarre I can't believe you seriously think it. Did the financial crisis have no impact on households? If banks suffer runs and corporations cut jobs, that doesn't affect households? 

Since cars and PlayStations are largely imported, Brexit may very well have an effect on the affordability of these items. 

39 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Brexit will have had less effect on the average UK household's spending ideas than the John Lewis christmas advert or the launch of the new Star Wars movie and associated lego toys.

Once again, it hasn't happened yet, but even so, you're just flatly wrong here. The strength or weakness of the pound or the rate of inflation do, in fact, have a bigger effect on people's lives than Christmas adverts (!). 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, brommy said:

Economic history is littered with analysis that stands up to scrutiny to some and not to others.

Of course it is. That's rather the way debates (should) go, isn't it?