Actual economic effects cont...

[ManonLescaut]

Telegraph: Britain could be up to 70 billion worse off if it leaves the single market IFS warns

The respected economic think tank said that Britain could enjoy an extra 4 per cent in national income if it remains in the single market, equivalent to two years worth of growth.

The report claims that while leaving the EU will free the UK from an estimated £8 billion a year of budget contributions, the loss of trade from Brexit could hit tax receipts by a larger amount.

It found new trade deals would be unlikely to make up for lost EU trade, which accounts for 44 per cent of British exports and 39 per cent of service exports.

Telegraph: Treasury looks at quitting the single market

Officials say the talks have revealed a willingness among some top figures to scrap passporting despite early calls to stay in the single market from some quarters...

Mr Boleat cast doubt over the UK’s ability to secure a Norway-style deal to remain in the single market. He said accepting free movement of people and paying large sums to Brussels while accepting its rules would not be politically acceptable.

The BBA wants the UK to leave the single market but retain unimpeded access to EU markets.

It benefits the Japanese Topsy because the Japanese don't run a deficit on the BOP, they actually have a positive balance of trade!

Its also fine to run a deficit on the BOP and we have done in the UK for decades, it depends on why it is occuring. For example the deficit increased here this year because prior to June 2016 the UK economy was attracting significant returns for foreign investors

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37609114

Many travellers buying foreign currency at the UK's airports are now receiving less than one euro to the pound.

The continued fall in sterling's value means that the average rate available at 17 airport bureaux de change is now just 99 euro cents to the pound.

The worst rate is currently 88 euro cents at Moneycorp at Southampton airport and the best is €1.06 from the Change Group at Glasgow Prestwick.

(contd)

"For example the deficit increased here this year because prior to June 2016 the UK economy was attracting significant returns for foreign investors"

If you have a minute, you might want to read up about capital account vs current account.

You might want to find out what the primary income account is dear and why increasing investment here might lead to a larger deficit on this.

After Brexit the UK can sell technology to China.

Oh, wait...

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/10/mysterious-factory-break-in-raises-suspicions-about-chinese-visit

If this decline in the Pound had happened under a Labour Government the Mail and Express would be screaming out the news. Happens under May's dictatorial rule and not a dickey bird.

Retailers warn of Brexit price rises

Failure to strike a good Brexit deal in 2019 will push up prices in the shops, The British Retail Consortium has warned.

The trade body warned reverting to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules could see tariffs on clothes of up to 16% and on meat of up to 27%.

"Years of deflation" would mean retailers would have to pass these import costs on to consumers, it said.

It follows a similar warning from the CBI last week.

Project Fear Manon - the Leavers won't admit that they were conned. Truthfully, it is hard to admit for anyone that they were made a fool of.

Until it is too late as we're out with no way back in has actually happened, it's just Project Fear not real.

And even when it does happen and we see the impact of inflation on our pay packets and increased austerity to compensate for the reduced tax intake, it will be the fault of those that wanted to Remain for being negative about the process

pbs.twimg.com/media/Cub-kjkW8AQMNXC?format=jpg&name=large

"Hard Brexit could cost £66bn a year"

I quite expect someone to post this except that The Times journalist who wrote this is just doing a Remain version of the £350m and needs to brush up their maths skill.

If you read to the end, it says, the economy will be 9.5% smaller than what it would otherwise be (remain in the EU) over 15 years - an almost certainly wrong long range forecast prepared by George' cronies.

So, if the GDP goes from £1800bn to £2000bn rather than £2190bn, the GDP has not fallen and 2000 is clearly bigger than 1800.

The second paragraph reads:
"The GDP could fall by 9.5%" - which is as bad as the £350m banner.

Scare mongering and misinformation continues.

Indeed. Apparently these are pre-ref estimates and the Treasury is standing by that analysis. They must be terribly sad someone's leaked it

My maths was a bit wobbly this morning but calculator confirms that is 1,269m a week compared to 350m a week. That 66bn figure is an (upper) estimated impact on tax revenues, so doesn't reflect full hit on company profits, household costs, salaries etc.

The pound is under 1.23 www.ft.com/content/140a9bdd-16b2-30a5-8991-d41e872bce68

Agree Topsy on point that's slightly dodgy wording in the times (at least given their later paras - I have not read the treasury doc).

So rather than "GDP could fall by as much as 9.5 per cent" it should probably be "the impact of this could be a reduction in forecast GDP of 9.5%"

I can't say a muffed sentence in the Times is in the league of the 350m a week - given that never existed and was never available - nay intended, apparently - to go to the NHS.

and 9.5% cost (/"estimated reduction in forecast GDP") is in any case fucking huge.

Central scenario has 7.5%, which is also fucking huge.

Gawd.

"Scare mongering and misinformation continues."

I don't think any leave supporter can accuse anyone else of scaremongering or misinformation.

This comes from treasury reports, which they are standing by even with a pro brexit government. It also confirms other work by think tanks.

How many other sources have you got for the £350 million or Turkey joining?

350m is wrong but two wrongs do not make one right. Turkey is low chance but not zero. Scaremongering is scaremongering whoever does it.

Making economic predictions isn't scaremongering, it just isn't what you want to hear!

There are very valid points made in the treasury analysis, as there were in the BOE, IFS, LSE analysis which ALL points in the same direction.

Scaremongering or academic analysis validated by peer review?

They are all wrong so far.

I know they have the get out clause of A50 hasn't been triggered but obviously failed to take into account that and will fail to take into account other variables, such as - maybe, just maybe the Deutsche Bank.

Maybe you are taking them seriously because that is what you want to hear?

The government's reaction to the story about the leaked papers is telling (my bolding).

"A government spokesman said: “We want the best outcome for Britain. That means pursuing a bespoke arrangement which gives British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market, and enables us to decide for ourselves how we control immigration.”"

This is tantamount to an admission that if British companies don't have the freedom to trade with and operate in the single market, i.e. if we have a Hard Brexit, that this will not be good for the UK.

Rephrasing that:

"A government spokesman said: “We want the best outcome for Britain. That means we want to have our cake and eat it, and enables us to decide for ourselves how we control immigration.”"

Well yes, a hard Brexit is a much bigger step as opposed to an EEA interim so will obviously be more painful in the short term.

Short Term? The Leaked Document suggested we would still be stuffed in 10 years time. To the tune of between £38bn to £66bn a year. EU membership is £8bn.

Won't someone think of all the hospitals we could build with that money? That's between £73 million and £129 million per week that we will have to take out of the NHS.

"They are all wrong so far."

Well no they aren't because they are based on the conditions that the UK would have following a hard brexit, its not a get out clause to say that we haven't exited yet, because it hasn't happened. So your "all wrong so far" claim is incorrect.

However the economic turmoil and uncertainty predicted for the interim has occurred, and this has led to many firms stalling investment, as predicted.

There may be variables, but as a Deautche Bank bailout wouldn't greatly effect the amount of trade or the impact of hard Brexit on the UK economy.

"Maybe you are taking them seriously because that is what you want to hear?"

Nice try. But as shown above your analysis is the one that is flawed.

How do you define 'Short term'?

10 years, 25, 150?

Maggie Thatcher destroyed heavy industry - parts of the North have still not recovered and she has been gone for more than 25 years.

The Irish potato famine caused huge waves of emigration and the population has still not recovered to what it was then.

"Nice try. But as shown above your analysis is the one that is flawed."

Nice try. Totally disagree.