Brexit Discussion Thread number 3

[Sin Agog]

If only there was some kind of arrangement countries could have to prevent their politicians trying stupid shit like this, a kind of union or something...

the union jack is the only union that counts mate

EDIT: Did you know that m+8 automatically turns into 'mate'?  At least we've learnt something from this Brexit farrago.

[FredNurke]

Must make the Glasgow-Edinburgh drive a bit awkward. No wonder the Scots went Remain.

[Dex Sawash]

the union jack is the only union that counts mate

EDIT: Did you know that m+8 automatically turns into 'mate'?  At least we've learnt something from this Brexit farrago.

mate

[Sebastian Cobb]

mate

[Replies From View]

mate

Trying to circumvent the (spam) censorship barons, there.

[Johnny Yesno]

If only there was some kind of arrangement countries could have to prevent their politicians trying stupid shit like this, a kind of union or something...

Cuh! You people and your 'cooperation'. You should take more notice of heavyweight commentators on international relations, such as this fella:

I'm talking specifically about the remain lies in the 2016 referendum, but if you want to go trawling through the past let's not forget the biggest and most important lie in this entire thing, the one from 1973 and 1975, when we were told we were joining a common market with some 'cooperation', when they knew full well we were actually surrendering sovereignty and decided to withhold that from the voters -



https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/acft/FCO+30+1048.pdf

Priti just wants to 'supervise important decision making' and exercise her 'freedom of action', m'kay?

[Replies From View]

I still can't get my head around that.  Who in 1973-5 assumed that the UK would be in charge of the EU and making all its decisions?

I have never ever heard that argument before or this claim that we should leave the EU mostly on the basis of this almighty "lie" duping us into joining.

I feel like I've entered an alternate dimension by this point, in fact.

[biggytitbo]

The point is how the EU was sold to us in the 70s versus what they privately knew.

Another economist rubbishes the Bank of England projections -

The Bank of England's prediction that civilisation will end with Brexit is merely an effort to outdo in shrillness similar analyses by the Treasury and the IMF.

All official agencies, trapped in an echo chamber, are competing to paint the grimmest picture of economic consequences of a British exit from the European Union. They are straining so hard because their projected costs of exit have no basis in economic theory or empirical findings

No trade economist believes that the long-term cost of this shift in sales patterns is any more than 0.5 per cent of GDP. Throw in 2 to 3 per cent of GDP as temporary disruption costs. Estimates higher than that are ad hoc.

And ad hoc estimates can go either way. Britain's trade with the EU is down to about 45 per cent from 60 per cent in 2000. Brexit will speed up that already rapid shift.

Scholars associated with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, uncontaminated by motivated reasoning, conclude that stepped-up trade and investment with more dynamic economies outside the EU will give British producers greater access to cutting-edge technology and force them to become more productive. Such gains, in their view, will likely offset the costs of lost trade with the EU.

This bit explains the groupthink quite well -

Sticking to unfounded economic numbers creates the suspicion of another troubling possibility. Travelling in rarified circles, political leaders, business people, and academics merely tell one another farfetched stories, which live in their minds and shape their analyses.

As Krugman wrote in a brilliant 1995 essay, "People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them, and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them. Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one's agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of one's suitability to be taken seriously."

[Replies From View]

The Bank of England's prediction that civilisation will end with Brexit

Yes I think those were the Bank of England's own words, actually.

Should I bother reading the rest?  Where is it even from?

[Paul Calf]

Biggy explains why everyone else is wrong while continuing to refuse to advance any sort of alternative proposition

[DrGreggles]

Another economist rubbishes the Bank of England projections

Hang on. It was only last week that you were saying that economists were always wrong.
Which is it?

[biggytitbo]

I think the point is that politically motivated economic projections are nothing more than propaganda, not that competing economic projections are necessarily correct. They're bound to stand a better chance when their authors are disinterested though.


You should read up on the author of that article, you'd probably like him. One of the few imf economics that was opposed to austerity as a solution to economic crisis and was against the harsh terms imposed on Ireland by the EU troika. Hard to find anyone more qualified on this subject.

[DrGreggles]

No. The point is that last week you stated that all economists are full of shit, yet now you're citing one for your source material.

[Zetetic]

Scholars associated with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, uncontaminated by motivated reasoning, conclude that stepped-up trade and investment with more dynamic economies outside the EU will give British producers greater access to cutting-edge technology and force them to become more productive. Such gains, in their view, will likely offset the costs of lost trade with the EU.

That's interesting. I guess that's Staff Report 542 dating from August 2018.

Let's look a bit more at that paper, and what analysis 'uncontaminated by motivated reasoning' tells us.

If the United Kingdom unilaterally tightens regulations, ... UK citizens are significantly worse off

Oh.

If the European Union also tightens regulations on trade and FDI from the United Kingdom,... We predicted that the optimal response of UK citizens is to increase international lending by financing the production of non-UK multinationals, both domestically and abroad. In this scenario, we estimated significant welfare losses for both the United Kingdom and other EU nations.

Oh.

However, we estimated significant welfare gains for UK citizens if their government were to simultaneously reduce current restrictions on major investors outside of the European Union.

It turns out that, 'uncontaminated by motivated reasoning', the scholars of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis have concluded that what Britain needs to do is abandon any trade and capital regulation. Further reading seems to suggest that what they mostly think the UK needs is easier access by US multinationals.

Is that what you're suggesting, biggytitbo?

I wonder what "force [us] to become more productive" means in this context.

[Paulie Walnuts]

are you fucking twats still under the impression that the leave vote was about the economy?

[Delete Delete Delete]

Trying to circumvent the (spam) censorship barons, there.

Thats a very Niche joke that maybe 15 people on this site might get. SEXY SEXY SEX!

[Zetetic]

Since biggy hasn't provided either a link or a name (for some reason), he's quoted from an Independent article by Ashoka Mody:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/brexit-scare-stories-ashoka-mody-imf-bank-of-england-mervyn-king-economics-trade-a8670416.html

It's a bit odd, to be honest, that he's cited that Minneapolis Fed paper given that he's previously highlighted how dangerous it was for Ireland to depend so heavily on multinationals (only temporarily encouraged there by a low tax regime).

[Zetetic]

are you fucking twats still under the impression that the leave vote was about the economy?

No (while recognising the impact of stagnating and worsening personal finances on the worst off making them vulnerable to promises of change, however wrong-headed), but you see the reaction whenever you point out it's about identity and xenophobia.

[biggytitbo]

That's interesting. I guess that's Staff Report 542 dating from August 2018.

Let's look a bit more at that paper, and what analysis 'uncontaminated by motivated reasoning' tells us.

Oh.

Oh.

It turns out that, 'uncontaminated by motivated reasoning', the scholars of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis have concluded that what Britain needs to do is abandon any trade and capital regulation. Further reading seems to suggest that what they mostly think the UK needs is easier access by US multinationals.

Is that what you're suggesting, biggytitbo?

I wonder what "force [us] to become more productive" means in this context.

I'm not suggesting anything, although I think you may be touchingly naive if you believe the likes of the IMF and Bank Of England (or the EU for that matter) are all closet Corbynites who who are motivated by the plight of the workers and believe the UK economy should should reject international capital and liberalization and veer to the left.

The point remains - politically motivated economic projections, project a future that is most politically advantageous to the projectors in the present day?

[jobotic]

are you fucking twats still under the impression that the leave vote was about the economy?

We know what is was about for you, you cunt. You is all rasists.

Going on Tommy's March tomorrow, prick, or staying in the spare room?

[Zetetic]

I'm not suggesting anything

You're quoting someone who you characterise as perhaps the most qualified person on this subject in turn quoting this paper as an example of what 'uncontaminated' analysis looks like. What do you think of it? Do you agree with its conclusions? Do you think that its authors really are 'uncontaminated'?

Do you think that "Thus, on balance, the net gains or losses from Brexit should be modest."?

although I think you may be touchingly naive...

And yet, we currently have a regime that does provide for capital controls being told that the only good Brexit is one where we unilaterally do what we can to abandon them and other regulation.

I recognise the EU's position on FDI and so on. I don't entirely agree with it, but I don't think that abandoning regulation is the opposite to what we should be doing. You seem to be copy-pasting arguments that this is precisely what we need to do.

[Replies From View]

It turns out that, 'uncontaminated by motivated reasoning', the scholars of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis have concluded that what Britain needs to do is abandon any trade and capital regulation. Further reading seems to suggest that what they mostly think the UK needs is easier access by US multinationals.

Is that what you're suggesting, biggytitbo?

This is interesting, thanks.  I've asked biggy a few times to give his opinion of any (most likely inevitable) US-UK trade deal, but he always dodges it and I am quite certain he won't reveal his motivations for any of this.  But good luck.

[biggytitbo]

You're quoting someone who you characterise as perhaps the most qualified person on this subject in turn quoting this paper as an example of what 'uncontaminated' analysis looks like. What do you think of it? Do you agree with its conclusions? Do you think that its authors really are 'uncontaminated'?

They're clearly uncontaminated by brexit fever, so they aren't pushing unwarranted disastarism for political reasons.  They're not uncomatimated by neoliberalism though obviously, but then neither is the EU or BOE. But then people like Larry Elliot and Costas Lapavitsas completely agree about the flaws in these projections, and they're arguably to the left of even Corbyn - so there is a cross ideological objection here.

I won't think less of you if you just admit you have a deeply conservative, establishment friendly view about these things. It's just sad to see - as Lapavitsas himself puts it -

Unfortunately, the left in this country and in Europe has become wary of the kind of radical change that Brexit entails. This is an astonishing defeat for the left – we have historically been the ones arguing for a rupture from the status quo. Too many now accept that the EU framework is somehow inevitable. All the debate is around how to fix it, tweak it or improve it.

[Replies From View]

They're clearly uncontaminated by brexit fever

What does this mean?

[biggytitbo]

This is interesting, thanks.  I've asked biggy a few times to give his opinion of any (most likely inevitable) US-UK trade deal, but he always dodges it and I am quite certain he won't reveal his motivations for any of this.  But good luck.

I don't think we should sign a trade deal with the US that is bad for us, if that's what you mean. If we elect a government that gives a shit about British workers and the national interest then it won't happen. I think your general argument rests far too strongly on flogging this relatively weak point, if I may say so. You do know, for instance, that the UK and EU currently trade with the US largely on WTO rules don't you? The EU has no comprehensive trade deals with any of the large non EU economies.

[biggytitbo]

What does this mean?

Sticking to unfounded economic numbers creates the suspicion of another troubling possibility. Travelling in rarified circles, political leaders, business people, and academics merely tell one another farfetched stories, which live in their minds and shape their analyses.

As Krugman wrote in a brilliant 1995 essay, "People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them, and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them. Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one's agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of one's suitability to be taken seriously."

[Replies From View]

Ah; being "uncontaminated by Brexit fever" simply means that someone shares with you a surface agreement that Brexit is A Good Thing.

Thought so.

[Cuellar]

Wait is all this Brexit still going on?

[Replies From View]

I don't think we should sign a trade deal with the US that is bad for us, if that's what you mean. If we elect a government that gives a shit about British workers and the national interest then it won't happen. I think your general argument rests far too strongly on flogging this relatively weak point, if I may say so. You do know, for instance, that the UK and EU currently trade with the US largely on WTO rules don't you? The EU has no comprehensive trade deals with any of the large non EU economies.

This is a wilfully naive understanding of what a US-UK trade deal will involve, and how likely it is to occur once we are out of the EU and have a neoliberal government again (whenever that might be), or even a majority of neoliberal MPs making these decisions.

It's not a weak point; it completely undermines the unthinking mantra of "taking back control" and you should be devoting most of your posts to explaining why you think it is fine.

[Johnny Yesno]

I wonder what "force [us] to become more productive" means in this context.

That's really sinister, isn't it? Thanks for highlighting once again what a free market fundamentalist biggy still is.