ChatterBank0 min ago
Eu To Lose £500Bn And Uk To Gain £640Bn In No-Deal Brexit
…says Patrick Minford professor of economics at Cardiff University and chair of the Eurosceptic Economists for Free Trade group.
https:/
The Sun itemises:
https:/
No surprise they’re reluctant to let us go. Bring it on!
https:/
The Sun itemises:
https:/
No surprise they’re reluctant to let us go. Bring it on!
Answers
The Times has this interesting analysis behind its paywall - so I'll break with my usual habit and do a biggish cut/paste : "It seems that there is no way to satisfy those who want to crack the big end of an egg and those who want to crack the small end. Therefore, leaving without a trade deal with the European Union 27 is growing more likely. Both Mark Carney,...
08:43 Mon 06th Aug 2018
More project fear rubbish, sexist as well.
https:/
https:/
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
naomi24,
\\webbo, the spin becomes more desperate by the day.//
yep.
https:/
\\webbo, the spin becomes more desperate by the day.//
yep.
https:/
TBH these sort of statistics can be viewed anyway you like to spin them.
I think it has been established that we buy more from the EU than we sell them. That will still be the case after Brexit. It is just the terms on how that happens that is the contentious issue. Any company worth it’s salt or have anyone business minded in it will have been making headway on no deal. It isn’t that difficult to pick up the phone and talk to people.
If all those so called experts were to line up in order of how often they were wrong it does seem that the Europhile contingent would be at the head of the line.
There is very little statistical analysis that is unbiased. And for supposed unbiased work that has within its documentation... in spite of Brexit or damage limitation are not unbiased. It is patently obvious as biased.
The things is that in every story there is, or has to be if you don’t want to be laughed out the room, a grain of truth. The fact for remain though the grain is exponentially multiplied a thousand fold to become what it actually isn’t.
I think it has been established that we buy more from the EU than we sell them. That will still be the case after Brexit. It is just the terms on how that happens that is the contentious issue. Any company worth it’s salt or have anyone business minded in it will have been making headway on no deal. It isn’t that difficult to pick up the phone and talk to people.
If all those so called experts were to line up in order of how often they were wrong it does seem that the Europhile contingent would be at the head of the line.
There is very little statistical analysis that is unbiased. And for supposed unbiased work that has within its documentation... in spite of Brexit or damage limitation are not unbiased. It is patently obvious as biased.
The things is that in every story there is, or has to be if you don’t want to be laughed out the room, a grain of truth. The fact for remain though the grain is exponentially multiplied a thousand fold to become what it actually isn’t.
I was inclined to leave this thread, having said my bit, but two points:
1. Thanks for the sympathy, gulliver, but it's really not necessary (as OG says).
2. I wasn't denying the existence of "Project Fear", but not everything labelled so is about creating a state of Fear. It stands to reason that in order to avoid the dangers associated with Brexit one has to know what they are. Otherwise, we really will fall off a cliff edge.
Put another way, Project Pragmatism, as I've called it, is about understanding what *might* go wrong to ensure that it *doesn't*.
1. Thanks for the sympathy, gulliver, but it's really not necessary (as OG says).
2. I wasn't denying the existence of "Project Fear", but not everything labelled so is about creating a state of Fear. It stands to reason that in order to avoid the dangers associated with Brexit one has to know what they are. Otherwise, we really will fall off a cliff edge.
Put another way, Project Pragmatism, as I've called it, is about understanding what *might* go wrong to ensure that it *doesn't*.
http://
^ that is a comparison between just about every other Brexit forecast that has been made under a bunch of different models, including by HM Treasury. Do you see a pattern?
It could, of course, be that these are all completely wrong. But I'm afraid I'm not going to pin my hopes on Minford's analysis because it seems to rely on baseless assumptions (e.g. that Europe will for some reason reduce its import tariffs in the near future).
Here's some peer review on Minford's model:
https:/
^ that is a comparison between just about every other Brexit forecast that has been made under a bunch of different models, including by HM Treasury. Do you see a pattern?
It could, of course, be that these are all completely wrong. But I'm afraid I'm not going to pin my hopes on Minford's analysis because it seems to rely on baseless assumptions (e.g. that Europe will for some reason reduce its import tariffs in the near future).
Here's some peer review on Minford's model:
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.