blandy Posted January 7, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, Awol said: post-Brexit Um, that'll be after Brexit, then. Not before. The world and it's dog have gone stark raving Brexit doolally. - edit, just beaten by Stefan. Damn! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Just now, StefanAVFC said: We're not "post-Brexit" though. How can anyone say anything has been proven right or wrong either way? I think these various expert institutions are a bit red faced because they predicted that a leave vote in and of itself would cause disaster. Keep in mind these are not the most humble people in the world, so unless they genuinely thought they were utterly wrong they'd keep quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, blandy said: Um, that'll be after Brexit, then. Not before. The world and it's dog have gone stark raving Brexit doolally. - edit, just beaten by Stefan. Damn! I'm not forcing these institutions to 'fess up, I'm just providing the links! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 They predicted a leave vote would be immediately followed by article 50 being triggered. I don't think we've seen anything yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said: We're not "post-Brexit" though. How can anyone say anything has been proven right or wrong either way? They won't be 'proven right or wrong' after 6 years, so certainly can't be proven just 6 months post referendum. It's on that basis that it surprises me how early some have derided others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 7, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2017 14 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: They predicted a leave vote would be immediately followed by article 50 being triggered. I dunno if that's true - as you said the other day, Cameron had said that's what he'd do, so less a prediction than a mistake in believing a tory. Additionally, the article AWOL linked says Quote "More than half the electorate who voted, voted for Brexit. Most of these voters will have presumably felt something closer to elation than despondency at the result of the referendum." Morgan Stanley's economists suggest that if enough regional data was present "we may expect retail sales to have picked up more in pro-Leave areas of the country and less in pro-Remain areas." The Bank of England's swift and clear package of monetary policy stimulus was a major help. "The August easing package had more impact on markets than expected and succeeded in looking coordinated, well thought out and not panicked in our view," Nell and Baker write. Which I think are 2 significant factors - 1 they overlooked, and are right to put their hands up for, but the other, less so. The independent BoE acted to mitigate problems, which was good thing, despite various Leave nobbers slagging off Carney. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: They predicted a leave vote would be immediately followed by article 50 being triggered. Sorry mate where does it say that? Or do you have a link to the original research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 19 minutes ago, brommy said: I took your acknowledgement that economic analysis is debatable. I've re-read my comment after I quoted you and realise I should have included a term such as 'others' to ensure you didn't think I was accusing you. Cheers. I've re-read my posts, too, and, erm, I was a bit touchy there. Sorry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, brommy said: It's on that basis that it surprises me how early some have derided others. It isn't that surprising. The entire debate was polarised to a ridiculous extent and many will feel they are losing a part of their identify, or their job security with the Leave vote. I'm still pissed off at the possibility of losing my own personal EU membership, I've used it to full advantage, moving to Poland and setting up my life there. It also upsets that me potentially future generations won't be able to do what I did. It also upsets me that some people had ignorant, even hateful reasons for their vote. I've accepted the result in democratic terms but that doesn't stop me being pissed off about it. To be honest I'm just down about the world at the moment. I hate that nationalism is taking hold across Europe, and now the States. Nationalism is gross for me. I get patriotism but nationalism is being proud to the extent it's detrimental to anybody who isn't from where you're from. But I guess I would think that. I'm very pro-globalism and anti-isolationism. In Poland, nationalism is huge. It's so depressing to hear my well-educated, reasonable friends become completely unreasonable because of some unwavering loyalty to where they randomly popped out of a vagina. Urgh. I just hate the idea of millions of people isolating themselves from what is a wonderful planet and wonderful people based on a fabricated climate of fear. Edited January 7, 2017 by StefanAVFC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: Sorry mate where does it say that? Or do you have a link to the original research? Well it's common sense isn't it? These companies make predictions based on the best possible info. If the PM has outright said "I will enact article 50 immediately" then they have to make these forecasts based on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: Sorry mate where does it say that? Or do you have a link to the original research? The Treasury stuff on the immediate impact (where they came up with the shock and severe shock scenarios in their immediate economic impact of leaving the EU) had this in it: Quote 1.42 The Prime Minister has said that if the UK votes to leave the EU, the British people would expect the Article 50 process to start straight away. when talking about 'Process 1 : Agreeing the UK's terms of withdrawal from the EU'. I don't know whether it makes clear in the whole of that paper whether this was just taken as read or was an important part of the assumptions made and whether any change in this would have made any difference to their assumptions of uncertainty upon which the direness of their predictions appear to have been largely predicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 7, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2017 10 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: Sorry mate where does it say that? Or do you have a link to the original research? Cameron said it in Parliament and on loads of other occasions. Hansard Quote If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 It got a bit gloomy in here, to make us all smile. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Well yes, common sense would suggest so, but I'm wondering whether that was specifically assumed in the Morgan Stanley research. You'd expect so, sure, but do we know that it was definitely an assumption in the original paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: Well yes, common sense would suggest so, but I'm wondering whether that was specifically assumed in the Morgan Stanley research. You'd expect so, sure, but do we know that it was definitely an assumption in the original paper? I understand what you're saying, but why would they make forecasts based on anything other than what the current leader of the country says will happen? To answer your question, no it isn't definitely an assumption in the original paper, but why would it be anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: It got a bit gloomy in here, to make us all smile. It's amusing but it misses the EU guy's response - "Good, because we won't listen until you've threatened to kill your hostage!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I guess what I don't understand is why they've released a follow up paper to admit "eating humble pie" if their original research was simply incorrect because they factored in an immediate triggering of A50. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: I guess what I don't understand is why they've released a follow up paper to admit "eating humble pie" if their original research was simply incorrect because they factored in an immediate triggering of A50. I have no idea either. The story Awol posts makes no sense. How can one eat 'humble pie' about a post-anything forecast, before the anything has even happened. It would be like an employer having concerns about a employee they've hired, and then saying 'actually I was wrong about him' before he's even started work. Edited January 7, 2017 by StefanAVFC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: I guess what I don't understand is why they've released a follow up paper to admit "eating humble pie" if their original research was simply incorrect because they factored in an immediate triggering of A50. An interesting point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I have no idea either. The story Awol posts makes no sense. How can one eat 'humble pie' about a post-anything forecast, before the anything has even happened. It would be like an employer having concerns about a employee they've hired, and then saying 'actually I was wrong about him' before he's even started work. Does it not add weight to the theory that their forecast was based on the affect on the economy, post leave result but pre-brexit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts