Challenge to the Treasury economic forecasts for Brexit by David Blake, Professor at City University Business School

[shinytorch2]

An academic has claimed the Treasury analysis “grossly exaggerated” the impact quitting the European Union would have on the nation’s finances. As the Press Association reports, most economic modelling has found that Brexit would make little difference to Britain’s economy, the study published by the Cass Business School claimed. But the government has ignored the waves of research, instead publishing “highly prejudiced” reports warning the UK would be poorer by 4,300 per household by 2030 and be hit by an immediate recession, author David Blake said. The City University London professor accused the Treasury of becoming a “propaganda machine” for Brussels.

www.cass.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/320758/BlakeReviewsTreasuryModels.pdf

No wonder we haven't heard much from George Osborne since he was savaged by Andrew Neil for his lack of economic credibility in this campaign.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07gbjs7/the-andrew-neil-interviews-leave-or-remain-2-george-osborne-mp

And here's Ed Vaizey unable to explain the economics of the Remain campaign

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/watch-ed-vaizey-grilled-by-andrew-neil-over-george-osbornes-dodgy-eu-dossier/

Interesting..

Knew, merely from reading it, that the dossier was dodgy.

I'm wondering now whether it amounts to perjury.

I'm not a legal eagle but do recall that the 1911 perjury act covers public servants making statements or reports that they know to be untrue.

Any brexitty inclined lawyers care to comment?

Prof Blake is as entitled to his opinion as anyone, but it's worth pointing out that he is a primarily a pensions specialist. I'm not sure why you would trumpet the views of one economist not especially qualified in this area over the many more qualified economists who disagree with him.

An academic has claimed the Treasury analysis “grossly exaggerated” the impact quitting the European Union would have on the nation’s finances.

Thanks for posting this shinytorch2. Professor Blake is right and I'm glad he has produced this evidence. The document is very clear and readable. As well as firm economic arguments, he includes an interesting section on why the EU is undemocratic.

I'm interested to know why - if you consider economists generally unreliable and dishonest, as most brexiters do - you would listen to one particular economist, with no particular claim to expertise in the relevant field, just because he comes to a conclusion you like? Why is this guy more reliable than the economists making less favourable predictions?

I can completely understand why people don't trust economists - I'm one myself and I often joke that I have one of the few jobs in the world where I am paid to get things wrong - but you can't have it both ways. Either predictions by economists should be ignored, or they shouldn't, but you can't cherry pick.

I think you can when the treasury's dodgy dossier contains no benefits for Brexit but all the costs, and no cost for EU membership but all the benefits.

"The pensions expert said the Prime Minister's warning about the damage a Brexit vote could do to retirement savings was the final straw in a pattern of "unfair" and "irresponsible" claims.

He said he was "staggered" by the claims about the financial risks of Brexit made by Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, claiming the numbers were "fantasy".

Mr Truell warned that the real risk to pensions came from remaining in the EU because of legislation being drawn up in Brussels."

Any professional who uses a term like "dodgy dossier" has plainly crossed the line from disinterested academic analysis into rhetoric. No serious academic or institutional research uses this type of language. It's the language of the tabloids, not of serious academic researchers.