Your Predictions On Brexit

[fender62]

will parliamnet pass any deal, can we leave without a deal, or does it have to be voted on.
how does it actually work..

[jim360]

And I am sorry Pixie but I don't buy your answer. Throughout the campaign No Deal was barely mentioned. The talk was of Norway, or Canada Plus, or variations upon these themes, or our own bespoke arrangement. Never No Deal. To suggest that No Deal was the plan, and the intention, all along, is pure revisionism.

[pixie374]

Jim, it is what most asked for. Your opinion of it being "damaging" is just that. Clearly new deals would be made, business is business.
Your presumptions are irrational.

[pixie374]

It isn't, jim. At least in my experience of normal people (not genius intellectuals, just voters). I don't know of anyone who presumed anything, most just wanted to get out. A beneficial deal would be ... beneficial, of course. But that was not the question, or the answer given.

[-Talbot-]

JimF's predictions sound like that of an English hating jock.

[askyourgran]

Why can't there be a no deal? Another scaremongering rhetoric with nuclear war pending? There was no mention of divorce deals on the referendum paper either. Deals will have to be negotiated there is a whole world out there wanting our business, even the EU needs some of us. Everyone is on the brink waiting for our commitment to Leave or stay. Business is being lost because of this indecision. It has to be done now. No deal is not Ideal but it is the best option.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I predict this:

If their is a second "people's" vote and if the "people" get it wrong a second time, then all the second referendum advocates will continue in their efforts to subvert the popular will a second time. They will possibly rebrand their original rationalisations, or posssibly invent a few new ones. But at the heart of their opposition to Brexit is the conviction that they are smarter and better than us Leavers.

I doubt, of course, that few of the economic experts on this thread who are predicting economic disaster (again) have ever done a paper round, far less run a small business.

PS: do they still have paper rounds?

[jim360]

// Your opinion of it being "damaging" is just that. //

I mean, be fair, it's also the conclusion of almost all studies and predictions about what No Deal would mean for the UK in the short and long term. So it's not exactly an opinion based on mere speculation, but on hard data and serious study.

As to the friends you spoke to, I'm sure that there were a great deal of people who may have just wanted to get out. But there's no evidence that everybody who voted Leave felt the same way, and loads of evidence to show the exact opposite. Besides which, the world doesn't work that way. We cannot but avoid having a negotiated relationship with the EU, be it on economic, security, scientific, travel, political, or on any other sector you care to name.

[jim360]

// Another scaremongering rhetoric with nuclear war pending? //

I didn't say that No Deal would lead to Nuclear War. I am just saying that No Deal is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon. Never to be used, always to be threatened.

[pixie374]

Jim, you often claim your opinions to be agreed by the cognoscenti. "It is generally accepted", ""the polls show" (when they agree, naturally), "research shows" etc etc... all very vague. And all purely different opinions.
We have voted. If it shows not to have worked in 20 odd years, have another vote... fair enough. To claim that the majority of people are wrong/ didn't know what they were voting for/ all had different ideas.... is just entitled arrogance.

[jim360]

// I doubt, of course, that few of the economic experts on this thread who are predicting economic disaster (again) .... //

I think you might have got the sentence muddled up a bit, but in any case: I think on the rare occasions I've talked about my own economic knowledge I've rubbished it. But the overall economic consensus is unambiguous. The scale cannot, of course, be known, but there is no serious model I'm aware of that doesn't predict some level of damage, from the mild to the catastrophic. It's also common sense: being in the EU grants the most favourable trading terms possible for our nearest neighbours, and moving as far away as possible from that -- which is what No Deal is -- will therefore be harmful to a country that is woefully underprepared for it and is built now on EU membership.

[jim360]

If I cited all the economic papers I'm talking about would it make you feel any better? It's not vague at all. It's just research.

Studying something more deeply than just intuition shouldn't be seen as arrogant, it should be seen as sensible.

[pixie374]

"Overall economic consensus". I will add that to the list :-)
Do you have any faith in your own opinions at all, Jim?

[jim360]

Here are a few, for example:

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/157171/1/IW-Report-2016-10.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/33/suppl_1/S31/3066076

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/2018%20IfG%20%20Brexit%20impact%20%5Bfinal%20for%20web%5D.pdf

I have plenty of faith in my own opinions, thanks.

[pixie374]

The claim that you "know" just is not convincing by itself. And of course you don't need to. I am not bothered by qualifications and claims, posts speak for themselves and you can see who is sincere and who thinks what they want is "facts".

[pixie374]

Thank you, Jim x but I have seen your way of thinking and don't believe they will be unbiased. Most people naturally go...evidence, proof conclusion. You are the only person here (with the possible exception of spath) who starts off with the conclusion they want, and then works backwards to manipulate everything else.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//If I cited all the economic papers I'm talking about would it make you feel any better? It's not vague at all. It's just research//

I'm quite sure, Jim, that you could pluck an impartial, peer-reviewed research paper from those depths of Academe you've got access to which would support, if not prove any fashionable theory going, including, for instance, that biology is a social construct

[jim360]

Well, it's certainly a novel approach to understanding the world.

Anyone who has done any research at all into the economic impacts of Brexit will know that most economists have concluded that it will be more or less damaging. Obviously, different models and assumptions lead to different assessments, but the overall picture is the same. That's not a claim, it's a fact. Now, maybe the economists are wrong. There are, after all, a few outlying economists (eg Patrick Minford) that predict the opposite. But, in that case, doesn't it mean that you should be studying these competing models to see which holds up the better to scrutiny?

[jim360]

// You are the only person here (with the possible exception of spath) who starts off with the conclusion they want, and then works backwards to manipulate everything else. //

I'm sorry, that's an absolute nonsense. I'm loathe to speak about my qualifications, but they *do* matter here. You don't spend five years training to be a scientist and not learn how to conduct proper research. If you think otherwise about me you are sorely mistaken.

[pixie374]

My point, exactly, ve! Makes it impossible to take him seriously about anything.
Nobody knows, Jim. Their guess is as good as yours or mine. In the end supply/demand is how it will work out.
Even disregarding that. Some integrity (just a tiny bit) would say we need to do it and give it a go.

[pixie374]

I'm not quite as stupid as you think, Jim. I know irrationality and insincerity when I see it. Your qualifications don't matter, particularly when you don't think like a scientist... but nobody knows what people's qualifications or experiences are. You either believe and trust a post, or you don't.