Project Fear were wrong all along?

[MrsPeterParker]

With all the newspapers and economic reports screaming there is no/ only positive impact of brexit so far, do you think the Remainers were all wrong and needlessly projecting doomsday scenarios ?

Oh btw, the FSB when it polled its members had 47% voting to remain, whilst 41% said leave whilst the others didn't know.

The BBC was 60% remain, so was the IOD.

Small business backed remaining.

Ever tire of being wrong?

I'm sorry to say being right or wrong is not as meaningful as it was even a year ago. Seems to be all about who can repeat the biggest lie the most times now.

Evening folks. Just a reminder that we like a lively debate but we do ask that people are civil to each other. Any personal attacks that are reported to us will be deleted. Peace and love, eh?

Hi. Iona's post reminds me that we probably on both sides want the same thing. We almost certainly (I speak for me, and I believe it of you) want rising prosperity, reduced inequality, improved social justice and a bright future for all children, not just our own. We disagree profoundly on how to achieve it and given that, it's hardly surprising that one side is frustrated and angry. I don't really think you

..are selfish and self aggrandizing, and I think it's a fair point that if I lump you in with the unpleasant people who agree with you, you will do the same to me. In short, I hope you are proved wrong, not out of gloating or point scoring, but because I believe it will truly be a success.

winchester, I disagree that we disagree.

The reality is there's nothing to disagree with.

You haven't even attempted to argue a case for riding prosperity, reduced inequality, improving social justice and a bright future for all children.

I would have done,before June 23. I don't know why I joined the argument, to be honest, because I can't be bothered to revive my research and find the links. I don't know what prompted me to join this thread. Irritation I suppose.

Surely you can articulate what prompted you to vote the way you did and you can state what you believe the outcome will be in something more tangible than meaningless sound bites?

The fact you can't back up your argument with reverting to articles written pre referendum is pitiful.

There was a lot of research, but it was prompted by very strong feelings of sympathy for people who say they suffered due to the unlimited supply of labour combined with limited jobs resources and houses. I really felt for them when they said no one was listening.

I'm afraid I think your tone, which was the prevailing tone of the remain campaign, contributed mightily to the outcome.

Yes, and successive governments have failed those people, but do you really think that's going to change as a result of Brexit? Those people have been used by politicians who want to further their own ambition, can't you see that?

That's very empathetic of you, WinchesterWoman, but tragically misplaced.

As you surely must realise by now if you have done even the smallest amount of research, communities with the lowest levels of immigrants are the most strongly anti-immigration, and those with the most immigrants view immigration the most positively. And the supposed negative effects on employment and wages simply aren't there.

No, I don't think so jaws. The impacts on price of unlimited supply are pretty obvious. I think we can't begin to solve the problems while those conditions obtain.

Thank you for your opinion kai. It's not new to me, but kind of you to articulate it.

And yet we have total control over non-EU immigration, but numbers of non-EU immigrants are higher than those from the EU. What does that tell you?

Your empathy is going to be sorely needed in Sunderland again soon.

But there was lots of research that said that people's perceptions about immigration were incorrect.

For example the low pay issue has been overwhelmingly about the effects of the credit crunch and its aftermath, rather than immigration, otherwise why did wages rise between 2004 and 2008 when EU 8 immigration was high.

The studies also show that EU immigration does not cause the unemployment of domestic nationals, nor does it cause pressure on social housing as EU immigrants are far less likely to be in social housing. It doesn't cause pressure on the NHS.

The reality is far different to perception, and that's the problem. It is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of the leave areas are areas of low immigration.

Again, if you think your objections are new to me, let me disabuse you of your misconceptions. There are many economists who think differently and whose reasoning made more sense to me. I accept you'd prefer to trust different economists. But that's ok too. Very few economists got 2007 right. I'm very familiar with, how can I put it, an 'establishment' sector. People who say there is not such a thing are wrong, and people who belive it is driven by altruism rather than self-preservation - well I'm sure you can imagine what I think of that fancy idea.

You'll have to excuse me now - my weekend commute awaits. Have a good week.

Many economists got 2008 right. However we don't need to make predictions about things that are prove able with well researched data.

Ah the establishment argument. You really are an idiot.

So UCL, LSE and Oxford University are wrong on their studies on the impact of immigration? Tell me the economists that think differently to these peer reviewed pieces of research?

Even the BOE's own research showed that for almost all earners immigration causes an increase in wages. for the lowest earners it says: " “A 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants working in semi/unskilled services — that is, in care homes, bars, shops, restaurants, cleaning, for example — leads to a 1.88 per cent reduction in pay.” Also note the difference between a 10% rise and a 10% point rise.

Effectively this means that immigration has a positive effect on the wages of the majority, and a very marginal effect on the wages of the lowest paid.

I'm afraid I think your tone, which was the prevailing tone of the remain campaign, contributed mightily to the outcome.

My 'tone' is due to the fact you are completely unable to answer questions.

ww Voting for something because you didn't like the tone of the alternative or because you didn't like the bankers who preferred the alternative is ridiculously naive.

At least have the courage to stand by your vote and explain how you see it all working out.

I've not seen you even attempt to turn one of your sound bites into anything remotely tangible.

Other than the tone of the leave campaign which was to dismiss anything that they didn't like, and aggressively shout project fear?

See the remain campaign debate relied on factual information, the leave campaign relied on promising every different stakeholder group they could the earth.

Anyone who counter claimed was either talking Britain down or "not speaking to normal people".

Well the normal people of Sunderland are about to see what happens when you listen to snake oil men..

Winchesterwoman: Why on earth do you think the sort of people I imagine you hate - like, for example, the bankers at Goldman Sachs - are so in favour of us staying in the EU? Because it benefits people like them, and it does not benefit people like, say lorry drivers in Doncaster.
You don't think car workers benefit from our membership of the EU?
Dr Ralf Speth, chief executive of JLR, also joined senior figures at rival firms in warning that a hard Brexit would damage the car industry, which supports around 800,000 jobs.