Drops in retail sales and and spikes in inflation also happened whilst we were firmly on board with the E.U. We simply don’t know what the end effect of Brexit will be and trumpeting of every piece of good or bad news as evidence of the correctness of your predictions is simply nonsensical no matter which side it comes from.
Economics is not an exact science, heck it isn’t even an inexact science. It is an exercise in post-hoc rationalisation where we only know who was right when the event has already happened and even then no-one is quite clear why they were right.
I’m not going to delve into the subject too deeply, but given the below summarises Leave’s position on the economics of EU membership, I’ll not find that answer satisfactory.
Remain: EU membership is good for the British economy and signs indicate leaving the Single Market will be very bad news for it. Here’s a raft of Treasury and industry statistics that say so.
Leave: Scaremongering! It’s not true!
Remain: Says who? What evidence and statistics do you have?
Leave: <silence>
Thing is, I can buy in part your claim that economics is an inexact science. Sure. But if Leave could have backed up the confidence in our bright Brexit future with some evidence of their own to indicate it will be okay, I’d be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Otherwise, the retort to statistics, however faulty, of ‘we just can’t ever know’, is the biggest cop-out for absolutely every possible issue under the Sun. It’s the mentality of climate change deniers.
And given that every single incident of economic difficulty was blamed by Brexiters on the EU, regardless of any analysis, I’m not impressed by attempts to shake of their responsibility for economic woes because of Brexit. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
You’ve done this before, UTJ, whenever you come into difficulty defending Brexit you adopt the ‘you people think you’re so bloody clever, don’t you?’ shtic, as if that somehow rings true everything you’ve claimed before.
There must be a name for that kind of logical fallacy…
There was indeed much scaremongering. We were threatened with WW3 and global Brexit recession simply for voting for Brexit. Faisal Islam pinioned Cameron about it. It was plain as a pikestaff that the pro-Remain economists didn’t know their arses from their elbows.
The pro-Leave lot were happy to let them make their mistakes, just pointing out the opportunities of being outside the EU and lying about the £350M for the NHS.
The Leave supporters to whom I spoke thought that there would be an initial dip but that longer term things would be much of a muchness.
Did you actually look at that clip? Cameron rightly says WW3 wasn’t mentioned in his speech, and it’s a classic Leave strawman. You may not like the claim that the EU has helped countries that until quite recently were fighting for the leadership of Europe to share and get along, but it’s there. It’s a pity Leave had to ‘win’ by completely making up stuff yet again.
Was it? I’ll ask this again and again and again: based on What?
Remain were using Treasury statistics. You know, the statistics that the Government takes quite seriously on a day-by-day basis to manage the course of the economy. If they’re bunk, then is it Leave’s conclusion that the Government has been using shoddy statistics for the past few decades? Given the effort put into these statistics, the wide array of sources, and their importance, I find that hard to believe. It’s like how Trump insisted that US unemployment was massively higher than the official stats reported, based on nothing other than the official stats were inconvenient to him.
What opportunities? You’re making my point for me! This claim is simply taken as a given, but every feeble example I’ve heard, I dunno, like the rest of the world is panting like dehydrated dogs to trade with a non-EU Britain was entirely unsupported by evidence nor by opinions of any foreign government.
Well, at least you’re on the same page as me about that.
Just hunches then, nothing more. From what I’ve seen it’s clear the Government feels the best way of minimising the dip and keeping things going long-term is by compromising to the absolute maximum on everything Leave promised, and maintaining as close a relationship as possible with the EU as to make it barely worth the effort to leave.
Not quite The manta is ‘what do these dumb non-metropolitans know. Now they’ve spoiled the lovely party’.
I don’t defend Brexit, I defend struggling working people in the face of austerity and the impact of uncontrolled immigration, and against the ignorance of the entitled, judgemental middle classes.
Fwiw, it seems (YouGov) Labour’s initial strategy of confronting ‘the rigged game’ is resonating widely. The problem that won’t go away is Corbyn’s leadership abilities.
You can use this logic to defend any indefensible position.
I predict that by 2020 computers will go Skynet, so we should ditch them all immediately, yea, even unto the ones that save lives. The ‘evidence’ out there that they won’t is just flawed, trust me on this. By abolishing computers, we can put humans back to work, too.
Time will tell who is right, but this isn’t some innocent little experiment. If it goes wrong, and the inability of Brexiters to supply any ideas of how to make it all work suggests it will, then many people will suffer and die.
Of course, I’ve no doubt that Leavers will do their level best to squirm out of responsibility for it and blame it on something else. Like communism, there’s no bad Brexit, only an imperfectly implemented one.
Nope. I don’t think non-mets are dumb; I think people who are incapable of defending their position with evidence and rational arguments are dumb.
If you happen to be not in a city at the time, then that’s your problem.
Regardless, it’s still sloppy thinking and bad argument. You don’t ‘win’ by pointing out that ‘metropolitan elites’ are mean to you by not silently permitting you to pursue your fantasies and drag us down with you.
I guess, in the broadest sense, the opportunity is to not have social and economic policy determined in Berlin.
As per the ERM previously - and as seen in Greece now, and Spain, and France (with 10% unemployment and 10 million at poverty level) - that does not end well, unless you are German and your economy is at maximum capacity and capable of absorbing hundreds of thousands of new, cheap workers.
If it’s not plain enough in economic data, the EU through Brussels and the various financial institutions serves German interests first and if necessary, only.
The UK isn’t in the Eurozone (thanks Gordon!) as you well know, so I’m not clear where the Berlin determines our economic policy bollocks comes from? The UK spent 40-odd years carving out a pretty sweet deal with the EEC/EU, and actually took a lead in the single market integrations.
Of course, Berlin will have a big say in our exit negotiations, very much to our national detriment, but our well-informed electorate voted for that.
What actually is the problem with the promotion of buying UK made products? I don’t know if you’ve travelled widely in Germany, France or Italy for example but there is large social pressure to do exactly that. Look at the cars on the road in each, look at the wine on the shelf or the cheese in the counters and for Germany look at the brands of washing machine etc.
There seems to be an assumption that looking to buy and promote products made in your own country is a bad thing, explain to me why that is so? Explain to me why Germany, France, Italy etc. are right to do so but the UK is not?
The luxury for the remain side is that no-one will ever find out what would have happened to the E.U. or the UK were the brexit vote to have gone the other way or if no vote were undertaken at all.
The assumption is that everything would have continued in harmony and nothing would have changed and the E.U. continues to be a net benefit to the states involved.
What if “remain” had nicked it 50.5 to 49.5? What concessions would Europe have demanded then and what effect would that have had? What ability would the UK have had to stop further changes? would dissatisfaction have grown in the U.K. leading to further unrest down the road.
Economic changes and upheavals will definitely occur in the UK as a result of brexit but they also have within the EU, ask Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Italy etc. (and those have not yet fully played out) and we just don’t know what the trajectory of the E.U. would be with a deeply divided UK within it.
In short, opponents of brexit point to the E.U. as it is now as the example of what we are giving up. Actually what we are giving up is what the E.U. will become and that is something we can only guess at whereas we do know what a fully separate and sovereign state looks like.
Where do you get that from? Even the most ardent Remainer doesn’t deny the EU has problems and Britain’s the awkward squad. But years of being the squeaky wheel got Britain tons of grease, in the form of a Rebate, CAP and CFP reform, and UK-led deregulation and energy and electricity union. Signs were pointing the UK’s way, despite Leave scaremongering. And given that UK resentment of remote Brussels being echoed even in places like Holland, our case would only get stronger.
A narrow Remain victory would not have led to ‘hard Remain’ and would have made it clear that Britain was in the EU only for the practical perks and not for the ‘European dream’, which is a thoroughly British attitude. Given new laws making it harder for Governments to sign EU treaties that expand EU powers, the UK would have had masses of power to prevent changes it disliked.
What you fear the EU will become is now infinitely more likely with the UK out. And we’ll be less sovereign because of our inability to influence it
Sorry UTJ but this once again proves my point about Leaver attitudes. I reject your premise about the EU being run from Berlin as it is completely at variance with all facts.