Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[shurlock]

To get elected, a ardent remoaner who called Brexit a piece of shiete, guaranteed he'd vote for Brexit in any commons vote . They're all Leavers now, it's game set & match. No need for UKIP , when we're getting a UKIP Brexit anyway.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It was a shocking night in the Brexit capital of Britain for Tranmere's most famous player after John Aldridge. If only he had quoted Mandy or maybe he did

 

Let's be clear: it was Labour policy to vote for Article 50. It doesn't mean those MPs have undergone a damascene conversion and are now all leavers. No doubt they'll fight government policy tooth and nail if it seems the UK is heading for a hard Brexit.

Edited 24 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Bless you Les. My criticism is that it doesn't even get out of the starting blocks because it's methodology is so flawed. Let's be clear - it is worse than an undergraduate econometrician.

 

Not sure why you didn't copy or respond to the first half of my post regarding his omission of services in his comparison of the Single Market and the Common Market? Why is that Les - perhaps because you realise it misses a huge part of the picture. Most people would stop reading right there.

 

The report does have a section covering the trade in services. It is discussed several times. You must have missed it.

 

Reread my response to Trident a few pages back. Without even the most basic controls to exclude other economic trends and factors that might have affected trade volumes and growth (e.g. systematic differences in GDP growth between the two periods given it affects trade - hence most analyses look at long-run elasticity of imports to GDP), it is impossible to make the causal and counterfactual statements that Burrage carelessly throws around. It really is peak amateur hour and bad science - equivalent to saying that Saints win fewer games today than they did in L1 and Championship and concluding they are not as good despite obvious differences in league quality and number of games played. This is not a strawman - this is effectively what he does - that you missed it speaks to your own ignorance and ultimately why you should stick to the football threads.

 

The report is riddled with howlers. Saying that nonEU countries have concluded trade deals with larger markets than the EU misses the blindingly obvious point is that it is because they've done a deal with the EU, the world's largest market and the EU can't do a deal with itself!

 

Again, the report does acknowledge that the figures cited include their trade with the EU. But this is the same thing as all of those statistics put out by Remain that talk of a market of 500 million people, when 65 million of them are us in the UK, or figures given of the exports of various member states when a substantial percentage of that trade is with us.

By contrast the aggregate GDP of all the countries with which

Chile had agreements in force is $58.3tn, Korea’s totalled

$40.8tn, Singapore’s $38.7tn and Switzerland’s $39.8tn.

However, the agreements of these four countries include

their agreements with the EU, which has a GDP of $16.7tn.

• About 90 per cent of the agreements of these four smaller,

independent countries include services, whereas only 68 per

cent of the EC’s trade agreements do so.

• The EC has therefore opened services markets of just $4.8tn to

UK exporters, whereas the Swiss have opened markets of $35tn,

the Singaporeans of $37.2tn, the Koreans of $40tn and Chileans

of $55.4tn. However, we do not know if the EC agreements

secured better terms than these independent countries, since the

scope of these agreements has never been compared in detail.

 

This is taken from the summary at the beginning, but of course there is much greater depth of detail in the actual piece.

 

More seriously, no sophisticated analysis is done on the quality of those deals. Just because Switzerland or Australia have FTAs with China, unlike the EU, doesn't mean they've magically unlocked a $10tn economy. Far from it. The reality is that most nonEU FTAs are not associated with significantly greater trade flows than do countries without any trade agreement -see the Ebell work you've refused to address (note that does have proper controls). The dismal performance of most FTAs can be attributed to their lack of progress in dismantling non-tariff barriers, which are particularly important for services trade and the UK's prospects.

 

No doubt you'll be furnishing information analysing the quality of the deals that we have with the EU, when many of them are entered into with an element of protectionism towards fellow member states, so that we could often arrange deals for similar products externally to the EU at lower prices. The dismal performance of FTAs reached by the EU has correctly been identified as being because of the difficulty in avoiding conflicts of interests and protection of the industries among the 28 member states. The recently completed deal with Canada was the classic example. We would probably finalise a free trade deal with them and others in a fraction of the time.

 

Reading the article in more depth than I did originally, the author is scathing of the written evidence submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union in October 2010 by the minister

co-ordinating European matters for the Department for Business,Innovation and Skills (BIS), Ed Davey. He claimed that Economic evidence shows that the Single Market has delivered substantial economic benefits, that EU countries trade twice as much with each other as they would do in the absence of the Single Market programme.

 

The author then goes on to examine this assertion, the statistical basis behind it and the sources of the information and concludes that the basis of the statement is badly flawed because it is not impartial and the conclusion reached was not properly proven by the evidence and also illogical on the figures provided, as well as them being out of date and lacking in comparative data.

 

Unless you can provide some evidential support for Ed Davey's contention above, then one of the chief pieces of propaganda to support the benefits of our trade with the single market, is based of total falsehoods. Feel free to challenge his conclusions

 

I could go on and on but you'd have to pay me to comment in detail on staggeringly cr*p piece of analysis. You'd be getting value for money as I can assure you my credentials are top notch

 

Come on, don't be shy. I'm sure that we won't accuse you of immodesty if you give us a chapter and verse summary of your qualifications, books and articles that you have published, lecture tours that you have done, etc.

[shurlock]

Come on, don't be shy. I'm sure that we won't accuse you of immodesty if you give us a chapter and verse summary of your qualifications, books and articles that you have published, lecture tours that you have done, etc.

 

Les you are have typically misunderstood what the author has written (and not written) and my particular criticisms.

 

Show me where the author compares growth in services under the Common Market vs. the Single Market to reach his staggeringly half-baked and unproven claim that UK exports would have performed better if the single market had not been created? Where is the statistical analysis to show that changes in trade volumes result directly from changes in the trade regime (customs union to single market) -as opposed to other confounding variables.

 

 

Where is his evidence on the actual impact or outcomes of non-EU FTAs -that they have caused greater trade? After all two countries which already trade a lot might be more likely to form a trade agreement, so there maybe limited impact. Thought of a response to the Ebell article?

 

 

Till you're capable of responding, I suggest you back to your bovril and allotment where life is simpler and easier to understand

Edited 24 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Les you are have typically misunderstood what the author has written and my particular criticisms.

 

Show me where the author compares growth in services under the Common Market vs. the Single Market to reach his staggeringly half-baked and unproven claim that UK exports would have performed better if the single market had not been created? Where is the statistical analysis to show that trade volumes (oddly he looks at growth, another major limitation) result directly from changes in the trade regime (customs union to single market) -as opposed to other confounding variables.

 

 

Where is his evidence on the actual impact or outcomes of non-EU FTAs -that they have caused greater trade? Still no reponse to the Ebell article?

 

 

Till you're capable of responding, I suggest you back to your bovril and allotment where life is simpler and easier to understand

 

It seems that you are the one who has misunderstood the article, the thrust of which is to dissect, analyse and argue the conclusion reached by the the Minister for Department for Business,Innovation and Skills (BIS), Ed Davey when he stated in front of a House of Lords Select Committee that economic evidence shows that the Single Market has delivered substantial economic benefits, because EU countries trade twice as much with each other as they would do in the absence of the Single Market programme.

 

That statement was made by Ed Davey, the Minister, not by Burrage. Feel free to argue in support of the assertion made by Ed Davey that EU countries trade twice as much with each other than they would do in the absence of the Single Market. Refute any of the arguments made by Burrage to disparage the conclusion reached by Davey.

 

I see that you are still being a bit coy on divulging your credentials as an economic guru.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Let's be clear: it was Labour policy to vote for Article 50. It doesn't mean those MPs have undergone a damascene conversion and are now all leavers. No doubt they'll fight government policy tooth and nail if it seems the UK is heading for a hard Brexit.

 

We are leaving the single market & customs union. May is delivering everything our Nigel wanted. There is nothing more that can be asked, it will be a UKIP Brexit.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

Let's be clear: it was Labour policy to vote for Article 50. It doesn't mean those MPs have undergone a damascene conversion and are now all leavers. No doubt they'll fight government policy tooth and nail if it seems the UK is heading for a hard Brexit.

 

When article 50 is activated there is two years to do a deal or it's hard Brexit. Do you really think all the EU countries will agree on anything resembling a half decent deal for Britain in that timescale?

[Jonnyboy]

By "right kicking", I assume you mean they won the 2015 election with an overall majority?

 

Labour were the party that took a right kicking, due to the fact that the electorate knew they introduced uncontrollable immigration under Tony Blair. Here is the moment that Labour lost it and always makes me chuckle:

 

 

Lol and he claims to have *me* on ignore for being a moron.

[Jonnyboy]

The EU Freedom of Movement of workers into the UK has been a major success – despite the spin and deception surrounding these rights. However, by failing to demonstrate control, successive UK Governments have invited criticism – to the point that it was used by the Leave campaign as a representation of how the EU has lost control of it’s borders.

 

The FoM directive allows for the “old” countries to restrict the rights of migrants from “new” countries for up to 7 years. The powers vary from stopping migration completely or allowing only for selected categories of work on a work permit basis.

 

IN 2004 THE UK CHOSE NOT TO USE THIS POWER AT ALL.

 

One of the sharpest rises in net migration came in 2004, when the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined. The UK was one of only 3 of the original EU members (UK, Sweden and Eire) to choose not to apply transitional restrictions on these eight countries.

 

In contrast Germany and Austria kept the transitional restrictions in place for a full seven years. Other countries kept restrictions for between 2-5 years and the Netherlands reserved the right to impose further restrictions if there were ever more than 22,000 migrants in a year.

 

By not implementing the restrictions the UK invited the surge of migration. They could have avoided the surge and the enormous bad press that accompanied it if they so chose.

 

 

The FoM directive is clear. The directive enables Member States to adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience. Article 35 of the directive expressly grants Member States the power, in the event of abuse or fraud, to withdraw any right conferred by the directive. The Migrant could be removed from the UK as well as prosecuted for Fraud.

 

The UK have not used this power – ever. As the UK does not know or track how many migrants are using the welfare system in this way then it is unable to even try to exercise this power.

 

Other EU members insist on migrants proving that they can support themselves. For example Belgium requires all migrants to prove they have sufficient funds, health insurance and suitable housing.

 

Whilst the FoM directive is now widely blamed for an “unacceptable burden” (Theresa May) the problem would seem to be more one of lack of control by the UK Government rather than “Benefit Tourism” by migrants.

 

 

After 3 months in the UK EU migrants need to be either working, have a member of the family working or have sufficient funds to live (and have full sickness insurance). If not then they can be returned to their home country.

 

The UK does not register migrants as they arrive and as such has no way of knowing how long they have been in the UK. There are no efforts to track or control this movement *. This once more allows the EU-skeptics to portray the FoM as “uncontrolled migration”.

 

In contrast Belgium requires all migrants to register at their Town Hall within 3 months of entering the country and if they intend to work their claim will be assessed and will be processed within 6 months. During this time they can reside in Belgium provided they can prove they have sufficient funds, health insurance and suitable housing. If permission is granted they will be issued with a Foreigners ID card. Only after 5 years of legal and continuous residence in Belgium will EU/EEA and Swiss citizens automatically acquire the right to permanent residence in Belgium (residence card E+)

 

It is not the FoM that causes the lack of control in migration it is the UK Government themselves.

 

 

As part of the pre-referendum renegotiation, Mr Cameron secured a further power. This “emergency brake/Red Card” mechanism would allow any EU country whose welfare system has come under strain, as the result of an influx of EU migrants of ‘an exceptional magnitude’, to restrict access to certain kinds of welfare benefits.

 

This power was lost once the UK voted Leave in the June Referendum.

 

 

To summarize it was the UK’s choice to not implement a 7 year partial or full migrant break in order to prepare for fresh immigration from new EU countries, almost all other countries did so.

 

Even with that failure, considerable EU powers already exist to manage migration. It is legally possible to register & track all immigrants, ensure they are entirely financially and medically self supporting, prevent and/or prosecute benefit fraud and return home any migrants who are not economically active.

 

Furthermore, Cameron secured an “emergency brake” to suspend Welfare Payments to migrants if necessary – powers which are now lost.

 

Other EU countries use these powers which might explain their reluctance to fix something that is not broken.

 

It is entirely likely that we are leaving the EU in part because successive UK governments have failed to understand or have been unwilling to use these significant existing powers.

 

Now that is actually interesting. I'd love to know who was responsible for knowing about these rules and what reasons they came to for not putting restrictions in place.

[Portugalsaint]

By not implementing the restrictions the UK invited the surge of migration. They could have avoided the surge and the enormous bad press that accompanied it if they so chose.

 

If the UK abolished Working Family Tax credits as the conservatives had wanted to some couple of years back, there would be a flood leaving. This benefit supports big business keeping their wages on minimum to be supported by the tax payer whilst escaping paying tax themselves. British farming however would suffer as they pay minimum wage and perhaps a scheme would need to be devised to combat this.

 

Perhaps overseas students have now seen how devalued the UK degree has become. The UK needs to up its exam process to that of the 50's, 60's and 70's before they made it easier to pass O and A levels. Simply the scheme of the 90's is failing and this may now show as to why overseas students do not value U.K. Education anymore. For me, it was when they made Polytechnics into Universities. Fourth class degrees that are meaningless.

[shurlock]

It seems that you are the one who has misunderstood the article, the thrust of which is to dissect, analyse and argue the conclusion reached by the the Minister for Department for Business,Innovation and Skills (BIS), Ed Davey when he stated in front of a House of Lords Select Committee that economic evidence shows that the Single Market has delivered substantial economic benefits, because EU countries trade twice as much with each other as they would do in the absence of the Single Market programme.

 

That statement was made by Ed Davey, the Minister, not by Burrage. Feel free to argue in support of the assertion made by Ed Davey that EU countries trade twice as much with each other than they would do in the absence of the Single Market. Refute any of the arguments made by Burrage to disparage the conclusion reached by Davey.

 

I see that you are still being a bit coy on divulging your credentials as an economic guru.

 

Unsurprisingly no response. My comments are solely about Burrage's methods and analysis regarding comparisons of common market vs. single market and impact of non-EU FTAs. You asked me to elaborate on my original comments which were directed at those questions, remember. I did and you failed to address or refute them. You were given another chance to do so and you didn't. Do you want to try again? Give it a go Les. What's there to lose? You can't look anymore clueless than you already come across.

 

Last time you hounded me on my background/experience (re.policy), you were made to look a fool and went quiet. In general, I have no desire to talk about myself on a public forum, much as I don't belong to Facebook, have a Twitter account or live via social media.

Edited 25 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Winnersaint]

For me, it was when they made Polytechnics into Universities. Fourth class degrees that are meaningless.

 

Hmmm an academic snob, that's all we need.

[shurlock]

Hmmm an academic snob, that's all we need.

 

It also has nothing to do with the fall in overseas students coming to the UK which has been concentrated in the private sector (i.e. language schools) and FE sector. Much of that fall can be traced to the tightening of the visa regime in 2011. Basically the poster is talking ****.

Edited 25 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Unsurprisingly no response. My comments are solely about Burrage's methods and analysis regarding comparisons of common market vs. single market and impact of non-EU FTAs. You asked me to elaborate on my original comments which were directed at those questions, remember. I did and you failed to address or refute them. You were given another chance to do so and you didn't. Do you want to try again? Give it a go Les. What's there to lose? You can't look anymore clueless than you already come across.

 

Last time you hounded me on my background/experience (re.policy), you were made to look a fool and went quiet. In general, I have no desire to talk about myself on a public forum, much as I don't belong to Facebook, have a Twitter account or live via social media.

 

You just don't get it.

 

As I have already pointed out, Burrage's whole piece is designed to discredit the claim made by Ed Davy that EU countries trade twice as much with each other than they would do in the absence of the Single Market.

 

The purpose of the article summarised here, explains that quite clearly in terms simple enough for you to understand.

 

When a government minister told parliament that EU members traded twice as much with each other as they would do in the absence of the Single Market, Michael Burrage set out to test the veracity of the assertion. Here he relates his painstaking quest for the facts, studying first the documents on which the minister’s claim was based and then, finding scant evidence there, conducting his own analysis of the data.

 

The purpose of the article was not to claim that the UK exports would have performed better had the single market not been created, but to refute Davy's claims. For somebody who believes themselves to be so intelligent, it seems strange that you can't comprehend this. Perhaps you couldn't be bothered to read the piece more thoroughly. He covers the scenario of what might have happened in the absence of the single market from page 64, but again, that is to discredit Ed Davy's claims.

 

You claim to have answered my request for evidence that Burrage's article was based on poor methodology and suspect analysis, but of course your couple of sentences do not qualify as elaboration, as much as you would like to think that they do. Let's have some actual examples instead of sweeping generalisations.

 

I also asked you to feel free to argue in support of the assertion made by Ed Davey that EU countries trade twice as much with each other than they would do in the absence of the Single Market, but nothing from you at all. Can I take it that despite your scathing remarks about Burrage's analysis of that statement, that you do not support Davy's claim?

[aintforever]

The EU Freedom of Movement of workers into the UK has been a major success – despite the spin and deception surrounding these rights. However, by failing to demonstrate control, successive UK Governments have invited criticism – to the point that it was used by the Leave campaign as a representation of how the EU has lost control of it’s borders.

 

The FoM directive allows for the “old” countries to restrict the rights of migrants from “new” countries for up to 7 years. The powers vary from stopping migration completely or allowing only for selected categories of work on a work permit basis.

 

IN 2004 THE UK CHOSE NOT TO USE THIS POWER AT ALL.

 

One of the sharpest rises in net migration came in 2004, when the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined. The UK was one of only 3 of the original EU members (UK, Sweden and Eire) to choose not to apply transitional restrictions on these eight countries.

 

In contrast Germany and Austria kept the transitional restrictions in place for a full seven years. Other countries kept restrictions for between 2-5 years and the Netherlands reserved the right to impose further restrictions if there were ever more than 22,000 migrants in a year.

 

By not implementing the restrictions the UK invited the surge of migration. They could have avoided the surge and the enormous bad press that accompanied it if they so chose.

 

 

The FoM directive is clear. The directive enables Member States to adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience. Article 35 of the directive expressly grants Member States the power, in the event of abuse or fraud, to withdraw any right conferred by the directive. The Migrant could be removed from the UK as well as prosecuted for Fraud.

 

The UK have not used this power – ever. As the UK does not know or track how many migrants are using the welfare system in this way then it is unable to even try to exercise this power.

 

Other EU members insist on migrants proving that they can support themselves. For example Belgium requires all migrants to prove they have sufficient funds, health insurance and suitable housing.

 

Whilst the FoM directive is now widely blamed for an “unacceptable burden” (Theresa May) the problem would seem to be more one of lack of control by the UK Government rather than “Benefit Tourism” by migrants.

 

 

After 3 months in the UK EU migrants need to be either working, have a member of the family working or have sufficient funds to live (and have full sickness insurance). If not then they can be returned to their home country.

 

The UK does not register migrants as they arrive and as such has no way of knowing how long they have been in the UK. There are no efforts to track or control this movement *. This once more allows the EU-skeptics to portray the FoM as “uncontrolled migration”.

 

In contrast Belgium requires all migrants to register at their Town Hall within 3 months of entering the country and if they intend to work their claim will be assessed and will be processed within 6 months. During this time they can reside in Belgium provided they can prove they have sufficient funds, health insurance and suitable housing. If permission is granted they will be issued with a Foreigners ID card. Only after 5 years of legal and continuous residence in Belgium will EU/EEA and Swiss citizens automatically acquire the right to permanent residence in Belgium (residence card E+)

 

It is not the FoM that causes the lack of control in migration it is the UK Government themselves.

 

 

As part of the pre-referendum renegotiation, Mr Cameron secured a further power. This “emergency brake/Red Card” mechanism would allow any EU country whose welfare system has come under strain, as the result of an influx of EU migrants of ‘an exceptional magnitude’, to restrict access to certain kinds of welfare benefits.

 

This power was lost once the UK voted Leave in the June Referendum.

 

 

To summarize it was the UK’s choice to not implement a 7 year partial or full migrant break in order to prepare for fresh immigration from new EU countries, almost all other countries did so.

 

Even with that failure, considerable EU powers already exist to manage migration. It is legally possible to register & track all immigrants, ensure they are entirely financially and medically self supporting, prevent and/or prosecute benefit fraud and return home any migrants who are not economically active.

 

Furthermore, Cameron secured an “emergency brake” to suspend Welfare Payments to migrants if necessary – powers which are now lost.

 

Other EU countries use these powers which might explain their reluctance to fix something that is not broken.

 

It is entirely likely that we are leaving the EU in part because successive UK governments have failed to understand or have been unwilling to use these significant existing powers.

 

looks like previous governments have ****ed up but that's all history now and irrelivant.

[shurlock]

You just don't get it.

 

As I have already pointed out, Burrage's whole piece is designed to discredit the claim made by Ed Davy that EU countries trade twice as much with each other than they would do in the absence of the Single Market.

 

The purpose of the article summarised here, explains that quite clearly in terms simple enough for you to understand.

 

 

 

The purpose of the article was not to claim that the UK exports would have performed better had the single market not been created, but to refute Davy's claims. For somebody who believes themselves to be so intelligent, it seems strange that you can't comprehend this. Perhaps you couldn't be bothered to read the piece more thoroughly. He covers the scenario of what might have happened in the absence of the single market from page 64, but again, that is to discredit Ed Davy's claims.

 

You claim to have answered my request for evidence that Burrage's article was based on poor methodology and suspect analysis, but of course your couple of sentences do not qualify as elaboration, as much as you would like to think that they do. Let's have some actual examples instead of sweeping generalisations.

 

I also asked you to feel free to argue in support of the assertion made by Ed Davey that EU countries trade twice as much with each other than they would do in the absence of the Single Market, but nothing from you at all. Can I take it that despite your scathing remarks about Burrage's analysis of that statement, that you do not support Davy's claim?

 

I have not seen the assumptions behind Davey's claim -I suspect its a simplification of more careful and sophisticated work (which unlike Burrage's work attempt to control for endogeneity) but would need to see it to be able to comment.

 

All I have done is comment on a number of Burrage's spurious claims which are conclusions to his paper and have got undeserved press, well at least from economically illiterate Brexiters (see Trident's earlier post which was all about the common market vs. single market and elsewhere the alleged benefits of non-EU FTA deals). Yet again you have not responded to these comments. Whether its the UK's productivity record or gravity trade effects you have consistently shown yourself to be out of your depth. I can't help you there pal.

Edited 25 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

I have not seen the assumptions behind Davey's claim -I suspect its a simplification of more careful and sophisticated work (which unlike Burrage's work attempt to control for endogeneity) but would need to see it to be able to comment.

 

All I have done is comment on a number of Burrage's spurious claims which are conclusions to his paper and have got undeserved press, well at least from economically illiterate Brexiters (see Trident's earlier post which was all about the common market vs. single market and elsewhere the alleged benefits of non-EU FTA deals). Yet again you have not responded to these comments. Whether its the UK's productivity record or gravity trade effects you have consistently shown yourself to be out of your depth. I can't help you there pal.

 

So essentially, you are not able to confirm Davy's claim that EU countries trade twice as much with each other than they would do in the absence of the Single Market, because you suspect that it must be based on a simplification of more careful and sophisticated work. Naturally. Therefore you find yourself in the position that you dismiss Burrage's rebuttal of Davy's claim on the basis that you are unhappy with the methodology he employs to dispute it, but you really have very little idea as to whether Davy's claim is just a sound-bite based itself on assumptions, false projections and suspect economic data.

 

If you read the article carefully, then you will have noted the background to it, that it was a very significant claim for a Government Minister to make in front of a House of Lords Select Committee and it was accepted as fact and not questioned by them. Regardless of your criticism of Burrage's methodology, he appears to have had quite a lot of information available to him to prepare a good case that Davy's assertion cannot be accurate, but in the absence of any concrete evidence to refute his claims, you will just have to accept the possibility that Burrage may well be right and that Davy was wrong to have made that claim.

 

I accept that voters are more likely to accept what they are told by Ministers and those in important positions, like Cameron and Osborne for example, and their position is strengthened by the influence and wealth of the Remain side, who not only had £9 million in Remain Government propaganda paid for by the taxpayer, but also an additional £5 million more spent on their campaign than the Leave side did. Despite this, and probably due to the healthy cynicism they developed towards the doom and gloom merchants, together with the antagonism they developed towards the superior attitude of the establishment elite who thought that the electorate were too thick to understand the case for remaining in the EU, much of that extra expenditure towards the Remain cause was wasted. For all their assumed intelligence and economic nous, they utterly failed to understand the psychology both of the man in the street, and also how to apply it to a campaign. Remain was all negativity, full of dire warnings about the severe implications of a vote to Leave, whereas Leave concentrated on the positives of our future outside of the EU.

 

This forum thread is really quite a microcosm of that campaign in many ways.

[shurlock]

So essentially, you are not able to confirm Davy's claim that EU countries trade twice as much with each other than they would do in the absence of the Single Market, because you suspect that it must be based on a simplification of more careful and sophisticated work. Naturally. Therefore you find yourself in the position that you dismiss Burrage's rebuttal of Davy's claim on the basis that you are unhappy with the methodology he employs to dispute it, but you really have very little idea as to whether Davy's claim is just a sound-bite based itself on assumptions, false projections and suspect economic data.

 

If you read the article carefully, then you will have noted the background to it, that it was a very significant claim for a Government Minister to make in front of a House of Lords Select Committee and it was accepted as fact and not questioned by them. Regardless of your criticism of Burrage's methodology, he appears to have had quite a lot of information available to him to prepare a good case that Davy's assertion cannot be accurate, but in the absence of any concrete evidence to refute his claims, you will just have to accept the possibility that Burrage may well be right and that Davy was wrong to have made that claim.

 

I accept that voters are more likely to accept what they are told by Ministers and those in important positions, like Cameron and Osborne for example, and their position is strengthened by the influence and wealth of the Remain side, who not only had £9 million in Remain Government propaganda paid for by the taxpayer, but also an additional £5 million more spent on their campaign than the Leave side did. Despite this, and probably due to the healthy cynicism they developed towards the doom and gloom merchants, together with the antagonism they developed towards the superior attitude of the establishment elite who thought that the electorate were too thick to understand the case for remaining in the EU, much of that extra expenditure towards the Remain cause was wasted. For all their assumed intelligence and economic nous, they utterly failed to understand the psychology both of the man in the street, and also how to apply it to a campaign. Remain was all negativity, full of dire warnings about the severe implications of a vote to Leave, whereas Leave concentrated on the positives of our future outside of the EU.

 

This forum thread is really quite a microcosm of that campaign in many ways.

 

Still no response Les...

 

What did you make of the Ebell paper?

 

Or perhaps you're trying to work out what endogeneity means and why it matters

 

Or perhaps you're happy to let your gut decide instead.

Edited 25 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Still no response Les...

 

What did you make of the Ebell paper?

 

Or perhaps you're trying to work out what endogeneity means and why it matters

 

Or perhaps you're happy to let your gut decide instead.

 

Which Ebell paper are you talking about, Shatlock? This one? https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ebell+paper&*

 

That is a bit long in the tooth, isn't it? Before the Referendum even. I cast a cursory glimpse at it and having seen that they had input from the Treasury included, I recalled how hopelessly misleading they had been with their forecast that each household would be £4300 worse off by 2030 and then I became more and more dismissive of this economic modelling that was used as a major part of Project Fear. I realise that you like to masturbate over this sort of publication, but it is in common with all the other forecasts of impending doom, littered with the words and phrases that give the game away; words like if, maybe, could be, theoretical, estimates, we assume, etc. It examines different scenarios that may or may not come to pass, makes projections, numerous assumptions and arrives at potential conclusions over a period ending 13 years away.

 

It's all brilliant stuff, if you are a fan of Science Fiction.

 

What it does not take into account is the increasingly likely probability that the Euro might not survive, that other member states of the EU might also follow us out of the door before then, how many free trade deals we will finalise and with whom. In other words, this economic forecast is largely pie in the sky.

[Portugalsaint]

It also has nothing to do with the fall in overseas students coming to the UK which has been concentrated in the private sector (i.e. language schools) and FE sector. Much of that fall can be traced to the tightening of the visa regime in 2011. Basically the poster is talking ****.

 

Interesting, yes, some of the students come from private language schools but most are from the HE sector which is universities. FE is further education which are the old Technical colleges/agricultural colleges. Although a portion of overseas would go to Tech colleges most would go to Universities. In Hampshire during the early 80's there were an influx from Iraq and Iran whether it was to Tech or the college of nautical studies. Families used this so that their sons didn't have to fight in the war between each other. Fees were charged but of course they could not recourse to public funds. They were issued with cards and had to report every so often. As time progressed Universities saw this as a real money earner.

 

No one has commented about WFTC introduced but the labour government in 2005 which has not been able to be quashed which would see the end of cheap labour.

[Guided Missile]

I guess we can shut this thread now, then....now then, howz about that, then?

 

The UK's doing great and will for the foreseeable future and Private Fraser and his like have woken up to the fact that we won the war.

 

Cue a verse of "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Junker...." from Philip Hammond

[badgerx16]

I guess we can shut this thread now, then....now then, howz about that, then?

 

The UK's doing great and will for the foreseeable future and Private Fraser and his like have woken up to the fact that we won the war.

 

Cue a verse of "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Junker...." from Philip Hammond

We aren't out yet.

[shurlock]

I guess we can shut this thread now, then....now then, howz about that, then?

 

The UK's doing great and will for the foreseeable future and Private Fraser and his like have woken up to the fact that we won the war.

 

Cue a verse of "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Junker...." from Philip Hammond

 

 

The economy is doing great Trident. Productivity, the most important gauge of an economy's health, is p*ss-poor. Household essentials, including rental costs, have soared, squeezing discretionary buying power. The current account deficit is at a postwar high. The UK economy depends on the tolerance and trust of foreign creditors, plus those who buy UK assets or lend to Britain. Those who did so in 2015 are now sitting on foreign exchange losses of close to 20%. Growth, such as it is, is being driven by a binge in consumer credit - did anyone mention signs of inflation?

Edited 8 March, 2017 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

 

The economy is doing great Trident. Productivity is p*ss-poor; household essentials, including rental costs, have soared, squeezing discretionary buying power. The current account deficit is at a postwar high. The UK economy depends on the tolerance and trust of foreign creditors, plus those who buy UK assets or lend to Britain. Those who did so in 2015 are now sitting on foreign exchange losses of close to 20%. Growth, such as it is, is being driven by a binge in consumer credit - did anyone mention signs of inflation?

 

And yet, as Badger points out, we aren't out yet

 

What was that song by D-ream?

[Winnersaint]

I guess we can shut this thread now, then....now then, howz about that, then?

 

The UK's doing great and will for the foreseeable future and Private Fraser and his like have woken up to the fact that we won the war.

 

Cue a verse of "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Junker...." from Philip Hammond

 

In some respects GM I agree with you in that this thread's run its course at the present moment in time. With regards to this whole issue I hope things work out as optimistically as you suggest. Even as a remainer (you'll notice not 'remoaner') I don't wish economic ill on anyone whether they voted in or out. Only one thing really bothers me and it is this; how come with your ability to foresee the economic future so accurately I am unable to access any of your published work, for published work there surely must be from one with such a clarity to see where it will all end up. Or is this just the triumphalist sheite rantings of a 'kipper'?

Edited 8 March, 2017 by Winnersaint

[hutch]

Few people that are any good at their proper job have any spare time to publish their work. Most work is published by students that went to university and found that they liked open sandals, beards, funny cigarettes and free love so much that they decided to stay there forever.

[buctootim]

 

The economy is doing great Trident. Productivity, the most important gauge of an economy's health, is p*ss-poor. Household essentials, including rental costs, have soared, squeezing discretionary buying power. The current account deficit is at a postwar high. The UK economy depends on the tolerance and trust of foreign creditors, plus those who buy UK assets or lend to Britain. Those who did so in 2015 are now sitting on foreign exchange losses of close to 20%. Growth, such as it is, is being driven by a binge in consumer credit - did anyone mention signs of inflation?

 

Not to mention the slowest recovery from recession in 180 years and slowest wage growth in over 200. Going great I tell ya

[moonraker]

Or the surge in key EU countries economies, prior of course to the EU disintigrating!

[Wes Tender]

http://www.cityam.com/260550/spring-budget-obr-still-too-pessimistic-uk-growth-year

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gdp-growth-accelerates-after-eu-vote-t7cmvhmjf

 

Always a good source of amusement seeing the two most prominent Remoaners-in-chief attempting to keep up their post-referendum doom and gloom scenario, when most of the evidence points to the situation being far more encouraging and optimistic than they and the so-called experts predicted. Of course, it's early days yet in the Brexit process, but looking at the developments during the past eight months since we voted to leave the EU, the major repercussions that were predicted to ensue have not come to pass. There was no emergency budget, no rise in unemployment, no fall in house prices, etc.

 

Reasons to be cheerful, one, two, three.....and several more.

 

http://brexitcentral.com/project-cheer/

 

As the House of Lords attempts to slow down or derail the triggering of article 50, and to encourage a revolt in the Commons over amendments to its passage, there is increasing clamour for May to call for a spring General Election to strengthen her position. As it stands, she would gain a landslide majority, especially if the manifesto also promised the reform or abolition of the House of Lords.

[Winnersaint]

It has certainly been an interesting eight months or so since the referendum. No economic disasters thus far which is a good thing. Can only hope that continues. If it does once Article 50 is triggered then all well and good, just not sure anyone really knows how it will pan out so using pre A50 indicators as a measure of how successful the post A50 economy will be seems a little presumptuous to me.

[buctootim]

http://www.cityam.com/260550/spring-budget-obr-still-too-pessimistic-uk-growth-year

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gdp-growth-accelerates-after-eu-vote-t7cmvhmjf

 

Always a good source of amusement seeing the two most prominent Remoaners-in-chief attempting to keep up their post-referendum doom and gloom scenario, when most of the evidence points to the situation being far more encouraging and optimistic than they and the so-called experts predicted. Of course, it's early days yet in the Brexit process, but looking at the developments during the past eight months since we voted to leave the EU, the major repercussions that were predicted to ensue have not come to pass. There was no emergency budget, no rise in unemployment, no fall in house prices, etc.

 

Reasons to be cheerful, one, two, three.....and several more.

 

http://brexitcentral.com/project-cheer/

 

As the House of Lords attempts to slow down or derail the triggering of article 50, and to encourage a revolt in the Commons over amendments to its passage, there is increasing clamour for May to call for a spring General Election to strengthen her position. As it stands, she would gain a landslide majority, especially if the manifesto also promised the reform or abolition of the House of Lords.

 

 

Weak try Wes. Growth continues to under perform at 1.6% pa - well below the long term trend rate of 2.5% despite this being the 'recovery' phase of the cycle when we are supposed to have the strongest growth. If you strip out growth due to increase in population GDP is almost stagnant. If you further take out the £1,000 per head additional spending fuelled by new debt we would be in recession. Its immigration and additional borrowing which is flattering the figures. Meanwhile we will be earning the same in real terms in 2022 as we were in 2006, a phenomena not seen since Napoleon. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/09/uk-pay-growth-budget-resolution-foundation

 

Germany has stronger growth than the UK and a budget surplus while we struggle with another £65bn of borrowing this year to add to the existing £1.5 trillion debt pile. We will likely be 16th of 27 for EU countries growth in 2016 when all the figures are in. Not quite what the DM and Express tell you is it?

Edited 9 March, 2017 by buctootim

[moonraker]

http://www.cityam.com/260550/spring-budget-obr-still-too-pessimistic-uk-growth-year

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gdp-growth-accelerates-after-eu-vote-t7cmvhmjf

 

Always a good source of amusement seeing the two most prominent Remoaners-in-chief attempting to keep up their post-referendum doom and gloom scenario, when most of the evidence points to the situation being far more encouraging and optimistic than they and the so-called experts predicted. Of course, it's early days yet in the Brexit process, but looking at the developments during the past eight months since we voted to leave the EU, the major repercussions that were predicted to ensue have not come to pass. There was no emergency budget, no rise in unemployment, no fall in house prices, etc.

 

Reasons to be cheerful, one, two, three.....and several more.

 

http://brexitcentral.com/project-cheer/

 

As the House of Lords attempts to slow down or derail the triggering of article 50, and to encourage a revolt in the Commons over amendments to its passage, there is increasing clamour for May to call for a spring General Election to strengthen her position. As it stands, she would gain a landslide majority, especially if the manifesto also promised the reform or abolition of the House of Lords.

 

It’s a bit rich hearing a Tory complain about the Lords. The Lords are performing their duty as part of a Sovereign Government within our Parliamentary Democracy, something Quitters campaigned for, they are a revising chamber protecting us from ill conceived or poorly drafted legislation, and the EU Bill like the referendum Bill was poorly drafted. They are a crucial check on the power of the executive and do not have to do as they are told by Dictator May. It’s a good job the Tory policy didn’t prevail on Lords reform and retain their legion of hereditary peers, you know those freeloaders who only had a seat because some distant ancestor serviced a royal or two, and just obeyed the party whip due their inability to have any independent thought or opinion. They still have 48 hereditary peers more than all other groups put together.

[Wes Tender]

Weak try Wes. Growth continues to under perform at 1.6% pa - well below the long term trend rate of 2.5% despite this being the 'recovery' phase of the cycle when we are supposed to have the strongest growth. If you strip out growth due to increase in population GDP is almost stagnant. If you further take out the £1,000 per head additional spending fuelled by new debt we would be in recession. Its immigration and additional borrowing which is flattering the figures. Meanwhile we will be earning the same in real terms in 2022 as we were in 2006, a phenomena not seen since Napoleon. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/09/uk-pay-growth-budget-resolution-foundation

 

Germany has stronger growth than the UK and a budget surplus while we struggle with another £65bn of borrowing this year to add to the existing £1.5 trillion debt pile. We will likely be 16th of 27 for EU countries

growth in 2016 when all the figures are in. Not quite what the DM and Express tell you is it?

 

If you strip out this and ignore that, then statistics can be massaged to reflect whatever position you wish to portray.

 

Meanwhile we will be earning the same in real terms in 2022 as we were in 2006, a phenomena not seen since Napoleon.

 

A brilliant bit of crystal ball gazing! It's almost right up there with the Treasury forecast that every family would be worse off by £4300 by 2030. I'm a bit disappointed that the Treasury forecast didn't include some comparison with an historical event two or more centuries ago to give it a Pythonesque perspective.

 

What do they consider the outcome of the negotiations with the EU to be? What do they consider the outcome to be by 2022 of our trade agreements with the rest of the World? I'm sure that you'll be happy to drill down into the figures, (as they say on Dragons Den) and enlighten us on the background research for this work of fiction.

[buctootim]

If you strip out this and ignore that, then statistics can be massaged to reflect whatever position you wish to portray.

 

 

A brilliant bit of crystal ball gazing! It's almost right up there with the Treasury forecast that every family would be worse off by £4300 by 2030. I'm a bit disappointed that the Treasury forecast didn't include some comparison with an historical event two or more centuries ago to give it a Pythonesque perspective.

 

What do they consider the outcome of the negotiations with the EU to be? What do they consider the outcome to be by 2022 of our trade agreements with the rest of the World? I'm sure that you'll be happy to drill down into the figures, (as they say on Dragons Den) and enlighten us on the background research for this work of fiction.

 

As you've often been told - you should read more, then you would embarass yourself less often. Most of the changes have already happened. Incomes have been flat since 2007 and future tax rises and inflation will complete the picture.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-personal-and-household-finances-in-the-uk/

[aintforever]

Weak try Wes. Growth continues to under perform at 1.6% pa - well below the long term trend rate of 2.5% despite this being the 'recovery' phase of the cycle when we are supposed to have the strongest growth. If you strip out growth due to increase in population GDP is almost stagnant. If you further take out the £1,000 per head additional spending fuelled by new debt we would be in recession. Its immigration and additional borrowing which is flattering the figures. Meanwhile we will be earning the same in real terms in 2022 as we were in 2006, a phenomena not seen since Napoleon. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/09/uk-pay-growth-budget-resolution-foundation

 

Germany has stronger growth than the UK and a budget surplus while we struggle with another £65bn of borrowing this year to add to the existing £1.5 trillion debt pile. We will likely be 16th of 27 for EU countries growth in 2016 when all the figures are in. Not quite what the DM and Express tell you is it?

 

So what you are saying is that as part of the EU our economy recently has been sh*t.

[buctootim]

So what you are saying is that as part of the EU our economy recently has been sh*t.

 

No I'm saying most of the EU is doing better than us. Its us that are sh*t. Cant keep blaming other people.

[Wes Tender]

It’s a bit rich hearing a Tory complain about the Lords. The Lords are performing their duty as part of a Sovereign Government within our Parliamentary Democracy, something Quitters campaigned for, they are a revising chamber protecting us from ill conceived or poorly drafted legislation, and the EU Bill like the referendum Bill was poorly drafted. They are a crucial check on the power of the executive and do not have to do as they are told by Dictator May. It’s a good job the Tory policy didn’t prevail on Lords reform and retain their legion of hereditary peers, you know those freeloaders who only had a seat because some distant ancestor serviced a royal or two, and just obeyed the party whip due their inability to have any independent thought or opinion. They still have 48 hereditary peers more than all other groups put together.

 

Why is it a bit rich? Just because I'm a Conservative, doesn't mean that I have to believe that the House of Lords is without fault. You yourself have pointed out that the system of hereditary peers is one aspect that is an anachronism and I will help you by going further and point out that most of the life peers are party toadies or failed politicians. Not one of them is elected or accountable to the electorate in any way and quite how the Liberal Undemocrats got to have so many in the Lords when they have so few elected representatives in the Commons is another anachronism.

 

Of course, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, to give it its proper name, was solely an instrument to authorise the triggering of Article 50, nothing else, and was passed by a substantial Commons majority without amendments.

 

I note that you will happily take the stance that the will of the majority of elected representatives should be usurped by the unelected House of Lords, even ignoring the greater democratic imperative that attached to the triggering of article 50 because of the decision of the Referendum vote.

[Wes Tender]

So what you are saying is that as part of the EU our economy recently has been sh*t.

[moonraker]

Why is it a bit rich? Just because I'm a Conservative, doesn't mean that I have to believe that the House of Lords is without fault. You yourself have pointed out that the system of hereditary peers is one aspect that is an anachronism and I will help you by going further and point out that most of the life peers are party toadies or failed politicians. Not one of them is elected or accountable to the electorate in any way and quite how the Liberal Undemocrats got to have so many in the Lords when they have so few elected representatives in the Commons is another anachronism.

 

Of course, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, to give it its proper name, was solely an instrument to authorise the triggering of Article 50, nothing else, and was passed by a substantial Commons majority without amendments.

 

I note that you will happily take the stance that the will of the majority of elected representatives should be usurped by the unelected House of Lords, even ignoring the greater democratic imperative that attached to the triggering of article 50 because of the decision of the Referendum vote.

 

Are you for real? The House of Lords has not and cannot usurp the Commons, what it has done is to act in a mature, reflective way and advised the commons that might want to think again on the substance most significant piece of legislation in my lifetime. Whilst I to believe that the House of Lords has its faults, however I am not convinced that being unelected is one of them, more party apparatchiks just following the party Whip will not improve what we have.

[Wes Tender]

As you've often been told - you should read more, then you would embarass yourself less often. Most of the changes have already happened. Incomes have been flat since 2007 and future tax rises and inflation will complete the picture.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-personal-and-household-finances-in-the-uk/

 

Perhaps if you were to read something more carefully, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by drawing the wrong conclusions from it.

 

Here are the conclusions to the statistics:-

Overall, levels of income have risen since 1980, but the gap between the richest and poorest fifth of households has widened.

 

In recent years the percentage of the household population living in relative low income has fallen. In addition there has been a decrease in household spending after inflation is taken into account. This may be related to the growth in pay being below the inflation rate since the economic downturn, until more recently when an unusually low inflation rate has reversed this situation.

 

So incomes remained flat during the worst period of recession in recent times following the necessary austerity measures that were brought about as a result? Quel surprise! The thread is about our nation post-EU, so why don't you concentrate on the period from the announcement of the referendum?

 

The report doesn't speculate on future tax rises or inflation, so I assume that the comment of them completing the picture is either yours, or some pie in the sky economic modelling produced for the Guardian.

[Wes Tender]

Are you for real? The House of Lords has not and cannot usurp the Commons, what it has done is to act in a mature, reflective way and advised the commons that might want to think again on the substance most significant piece of legislation in my lifetime. Whilst I to believe that the House of Lords has its faults, however I am not convinced that being unelected is one of them, more party apparatchiks just following the party Whip will not improve what we have.

 

The HOL cannot usurp the will of the Commons? You have obviously overlooked the Lib Undems amendment that sought to have rejected the Bill altogether, which would have killed it stone dead. OK, that would have brought about a Constitutional crisis, which was thankfully avoided by being rejected by the majority, but presumably you don't believe that amendment constitutes unreasonable behaviour from the old duffers? Also, they would quite happily undermine our negotiating position by insisting that we grant rights to all EU citizens who currently reside here the right to remain, before we have established that our ex-pats will be given reciprocal rights to remain in the EU. Furthermore, they also tried to have another referendum at the conclusion of the two years Brexit period, or that having failed to gain the consent of the majority, an amendment giving Parliament the right to decide on whether we left the EU or not following our negotiations with the EU, i.e. an opportunity to remain in the EU against the wishes of the electorate.

 

If you believe these to be the actions of mature, sensible people, then more fool you.

 

The likelihood will be that as a result of the referendum and the Commons majority, their Lordships will allow the Bill to receive Royal Assent and Article 50 can be triggered before the end of March without amendment. If not, then as I say, the clamour for their abolition will become irresistible.

[shurlock]

edit

[shurlock]

http://www.cityam.com/260550/spring-budget-obr-still-too-pessimistic-uk-growth-year

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gdp-growth-accelerates-after-eu-vote-t7cmvhmjf

 

Always a good source of amusement seeing the two most prominent Remoaners-in-chief attempting to keep up their post-referendum doom and gloom scenario, when most of the evidence points to the situation being far more encouraging and optimistic than they and the so-called experts predicted.

 

Good to see you quoting forecasts when it suits your purposes Les -and rubbishing them when others do so.

 

Quelle surprise Les.

 

By the way its quelle, not quel, you frazzled wurzel

[buctootim]

Perhaps if you were to read something more carefully, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by drawing the wrong conclusions from it.

Jeez you really are an utter cretin. Is there no point so big and so bold that even you can't fail to grasp? Yes wages are higher than in 1980. They rose in every decade since 1800 but have flatlined since 2007 and are projected to do the same for the next five years due to built in tax rises and spending cuts. Thats the whole point

Edited 9 March, 2017 by buctootim

[hutch]

The HOL cannot usurp the will of the Commons? You have obviously overlooked the Lib Undems amendment that sought to have rejected the Bill altogether, which would have killed it stone dead. OK, that would have brought about a Constitutional crisis, which was thankfully avoided by being rejected by the majority, but presumably you don't believe that amendment constitutes unreasonable behaviour from the old duffers? Also, they would quite happily undermine our negotiating position by insisting that we grant rights to all EU citizens who currently reside here the right to remain, before we have established that our ex-pats will be given reciprocal rights to remain in the EU. Furthermore, they also tried to have another referendum at the conclusion of the two years Brexit period, or that having failed to gain the consent of the majority, an amendment giving Parliament the right to decide on whether we left the EU or not following our negotiations with the EU, i.e. an opportunity to remain in the EU against the wishes of the electorate.

 

If you believe these to be the actions of mature, sensible people, then more fool you.

 

The likelihood will be that as a result of the referendum and the Commons majority, their Lordships will allow the Bill to receive Royal Assent and Article 50 can be triggered before the end of March without amendment. If not, then as I say, the clamour for their abolition will become irresistible.

He is 100% correct though, apart from the mature, reflective bit. The Lords cannot usurp the will of the democratically elected lower house.

 

His earlier post was a bit off. The Lords is part of sovereign Parliament not Government and it is the role of Parliament, as a whole, to act as a check on the executive. But this one is spot on.

[Wes Tender]

Jeez you really are an utter cretin. Is there no point so big and so bold that even you can't fail to grasp? Yes wages are higher than in 1980. They rose in every decade since 1800 but have flatlined since 2007 and are projected to do the same for the next five years due to built in tax rises and spending cuts. Thats the whole point

 

Having to resort to insults doesn't help you, I'm afraid, Timmy. It rather smacks of you throwing your toys out of the pram because somebody dared to question your opinion. As I said and obviously need to repeat, wage levels would naturally be affected by the deepest recession in recent times and the subsequent austerity measures. I asked why you felt the need to make comparisons back a couple of hundred years, which makes you look ridiculous, when the debate is about Brexit, which only came into effect just over 8 months ago.

 

I also reiterate that the article itself didn't make any predictions about the future growth of earnings, but initially you said that

Incomes have been flat since 2007 and future tax rises and inflation will complete the picture.

 

Now you are saying that

They rose in every decade since 1800 but have flatlined since 2007 and are projected to do the same for the next five years due to built in tax rises and spending cuts.

 

Which is it? Tax rises and spending cuts, or tax rises and inflation?

 

You seem to be a bit muddled.

[shurlock]

https://www.ft.com/content/3edbbc7e-04ea-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9

 

#takebackcontrol

[Winnersaint]

https://www.ft.com/content/3edbbc7e-04ea-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9

 

#takebackcontrol

 

Good idea if you put links in to support an argument that it isn't hidden behind a paywall. Would have been interested in this but can't be arsed to pay.

[buctootim]

Good idea if you put links in to support an argument that it isn't hidden behind a paywall. Would have been interested in this but can't be arsed to pay.

 

'Second Scottish independence vote ‘looking inevitable’

[Wes Tender]

Very entertaining watching the Beeb's Political Editor Philomena Cunk in that Brexit documentary last night.

[Winnersaint]

'Second Scottish independence vote ‘looking inevitable’

 

Thanks