Charting our nemesis

[lonelyplanetmum]

Which chart encapsulates this nightmare for you?

This is the pie chart that I showed my FIL when he was repeating Farage’s drivel. The government’s own 2016 figures showed how statistically insignificant our EU budget percentage contribution always was.

In a way I admire people who feel confident ignoring economists and the government's own predictions which all agree that any Brexit scenario leaves the economy worse off.

Focussing on current jobs figures seems positive and certainly helps ignore the explanations that the economy is a lot more fragile than it looks:

The whole picture importantly includes GDP growth, and investment which is in dire straits as shown in the downward arching blue graph a few posts below.

Britain’s labour market looks great if you don't factor in concerns over insecure gig economy workers, zero-hours contracts, public sector pay and the fact wages remain below their pre-crisis level as (depicted in this graphg..

•Business shows no sign of investment. This leads to a short term retention of workers instead of investment in technology and future innovation and planning.

• Britain’s abysmally low productivity therefore remains unaddressed which is a crisis waiting to happen.

• Jobs figures are masked by the increase in insecure gig economy and zero hours contracts type work.

•The average real wage remains far below where it was before the financial crisis.

•The number of children living in poverty is on track to reach a record high by 2023-4, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank.

• The cost of living is rising.

• Wages have risen less than they were rising in June 2016.

As Liverpool university economics department explained the unemployment rate is a lagging economic indicator and will, sooner than later, catch up with the ongoing slowdown in GDP growth.

So hiring and firing tends to lag at least six months behind and some jobs will have been created to aid with Brexit preparation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/uk-unemployment-jobs-figures-brexit-turmoil-honda-nissan-a8798856.html

economists and the government's own predictions which all agree that any Brexit scenario leaves the economy worse off

Based on what some MP's have said on Question Time I disagree that the entire Government agrees that Brexit guarantees that UK will be worse off. For sure you will here that from those that voted remain, but not from those that voted leave.

For sure there will be casualties when UK leaves EU, but if overall there are more people better off then it is the right decision.

if overall there are more people better off then it is the right decision

? Does this mean that if overall there are more people worse off then it's the wrong decision?

It is as certain as it can be that on any scenario we will be worse off. End of. The vast majority of economists agree on this - see below. The government agrees on this. As TM said the people voted for the pain.

I think a better argument is that yes we will all be worse off ...but that the pain will be worth it for some abstract esoteric benefit.

An individual MPs performance and opinion on QT can't trump months of work on the government's full official detailed impact assessments surely? The fact the gov initially tried to suppress this info speaks volumes.

Summaries and full report below.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-government-leaked-brexit-economics-paper-compares-to-other-forecasts-2018-1

---

https://www.dw.com/en/british-government-forecasts-doomsday-no-deal-brexit-scenario/a-46482154

https://www.ft.com/content/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250#axzz426zfZhXN

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/uk-significantly-worse-off-under-all-brexit-scenarios-official-forecast-gdp

---

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46366162

---

https://www.politico.eu/article/best-case-brexit-scenario-means-2-5-percent-hit-to-uk-growth-over-15-years/

---

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/

---

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/760484/288NovemberEUUExit--Long-termeconomiccanalysis11_.pdf

www.ft.com/content/98cda818-f300-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d?fbclid=IwAR3ufMekYPSv3KyaCtZNmB8EuzgDlOrb8BycOC6UatnVPZd4TgiBvrh1Jww

The Defra info - just has my head in my hands - it's not that I don't know it, it's just awful seeing it in black and white.
My fledgling business requires live stock movement to and from Ireland and Europe. Irish contacts are shitting themselves as it's going to screw their businesses, European are more sanguine- they have other just as important markets....... they do understand it is going to screw us though......
I am finding myself more and more yelling at the TV and radio when TM and other Brexiteers say it's going to be fine..... most of them have never had to truly work for a living....

Does this mean that if overall there are more people worse off then it's the wrong decision

Only time will tell. Point is that majority voted out. I can't think of a fairer way to run a country other than to act upon the vote of the majority.

Not possible to ignore a vote because the minority think the majority made a wrong decision and therefore the majority vote must be ignored. People are entitled to vote how they choose and they are not obligated to explain to others their reasons.

but that the pain will be worth it for some abstract esoteric benefit

Possible that is what some think. Not everyone votes solely on the basis of money. Labour are renowned for high borrowing and high taxes and wrecking the UK economy, but they still get votes. Conservatives are renowned for making the well off more well off, but they still get votes.

Many couples who divorce end up worse off financially, but are more well off mentally and happier. So they vote based on issues such as; freedom, no longer being controlled, no longer subsidizing non contributing partner, etc.

An individual MPs performance and opinion on QT can't trump months of work on the government's full official detailed impact assessments surely?

Maybe the MP's on QT have researched for months as well?

It is very easy to manipulate and cherry pick numbers and statistics to suit your own argument. For every argument there will always be a counter argument.

It is not possible to please everyone at the same time. Hence public are requested to Vote. The option that receives the most votes is the one that has to be acted upon.

If people come to the conclusion they got it wrong in the past they can change their vote in future as happens in General Elections. However, the result of the General Election has to be implemented. If voters think Government is doing a bad job they can vote differently at the next election.

The fact the gov initially tried to suppress this info speaks volumes

Government tried to suppress the legalities over the Irish Border issue in the hope that T May's WA got through without people being aware that UK could be locked into the EU forever even though 39 Billion had to be paid to leave! Once that fact came out the T May WA was shot down over and over. Even the remain MP's and most of Labour said it was a bad deal. Some thought the terms were worse than what UK currently has with EU.

Some forecast before the referendum that UK would go into instant recession just by voting to leave even before leave actually took place. Did not happen. Now even Carney is saying that things are not as gloomy as once thought.

Now even Carney is saying that things are not as gloomy as once thought.
Indeed. Maybe his predecessor Mervyn King's positive stance on Brexit has been right all along.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-takes-top-spot-for-global-firms-seeking-deals-37mm5rkgb

From the Times article:
"Britain has become the most attractive hunting ground for global companies to make acquisitions for the first time in at least a decade, according to a study of senior managers’ dealmaking intentions.

It has risen to be the foremost destination in the world for future acquisitions, displacing the United States from the top spot, in spite of uncertainty over Brexit, according to the survey of chief executives and finance bosses from 47 countries by EY, the consulting firm.

Consumer products, retail, industrials and financial services were said to be the most sought-after sectors.. US companies were the most enthusiastic about buying assets in the UK, followed by British firms looking to do domestic deals and then German groups."

I wonder if you read and absorbed the list of links about the government's months of detailed calculations leaveor.

The 83 page document was drawn up based on calculations from a number of departments including the Treasury, the Department for Exiting the EU, Industry, Environment, International Trade and the Home Office.

Isn't it a little illogical to cling to positive economic predictions against the (initially suppressed) consensus of detailed research?

Crashing out of the bloc without a deal means the economy would contract by its sharpest level since WWII. It would fall as much as 9 to 10 per cent in five-years alone and gross domestic product would drop by 6.25 per cent.

Admittedly the WA would only be 3.9 per cent worse off in 15 years’. But that also seems daft when the point was allegedly to save 0.7 % of GDP. And it's very unlikely the WA will be approved anyway.

Which individual MP on QT are you referring to who denies all this? Which MP knows better than all the government departments listed above ?

Here are yet more articles.Some international.

new~York~times~evonomy

Brexit~assessments rte

city~am~government's~own

the~times~report~on~economic~damage

worse~off~under~every~option itv

worse~off~under~all~scenarios~Hindu~business

U.K.~worse~off

https://qz.com/1477680/brexit-is-a-bad-idea-whichever-way-you-look-at-it-economically-speaking/

{Consumer products, retail, industrials and financial services were said to be the most sought-after sectors.. US companies were the most enthusiastic about buying assets in the UK, followed by British firms looking to do domestic deals and then German groups."}

While this is all very jolly, there is a MASSIVE problem, in that neither Labour or Tory parties have any real aspirations of solving the true causes of Brexit, the massive inequality between London and the South against virtually everywhere else. Unless the inward investment goes to areas outside London and SE then almost nothing has been gained. It is the governments (of both flavours) inability to really even out the pay gap (and general prosperity) that will prevent Brexit being a success.

The pound is so low that there will be some opportunities for the risk taking US companies and of course disaster capitalists.

However why is the hope of a few reckless US investors better for us than our previous position as 5 th strongest economy?
Why is that better than unrestricted access to a market on our doorstep worth $18.8 trillion of 500 million consumers.

Where are the forecasts saying on any Brexit scenario we will now rise to 4 th ,3rd or 2nd place? Answer - silence.

investment~week~is~pessimistic

{US companies were the most enthusiastic about buying assets in the UK}

And they will impose their 'rules' around these deals which unlike working within the EU the UK will have virtually no say about them.
Unlike at present the UK is at the top table making the rules with partners.

Britain has become the most attractive hunting ground for global companies to make acquisitions for the first time in at least a decade, according to a study of senior managers’ dealmaking intentions
We should be very worried. Disaster capitalism and asset stripping to run rife.

finance.yahoo.com/news/devastating-chart-uk-governments-brexit-analysis-091434226.html

{We should be very worried. Disaster capitalism and asset stripping to run rife.}

Indeed, the idea of acquisitions and investment looks good on paper, but you have to examine the fine print and then work out what the real improvements to the people of the UK might be. It is often the case that a company is 'bought' with the stated aim of improving matters, only to find that a year down the line, improvements didn't happen and that it is sold on to others with even less interest in benefiting the general workforce, while 'management' get a large bonus and leave.

Lonely. If you want people to see your scary yahoo chart you'd better do it yourself.

The 83 page document was drawn up based on calculations from a number of departments including the Treasury, the Department for Exiting the EU, Industry, Environment, International Trade and the Home Office

83 pages is nowhere near enough to describe the potential impacts of Brexit. By the time you have made an Executive Summary, Table of Contents, inserted headers and footers, Titles of Sections, etc., there will not be a lot of pages left to describe in detail Brexit. To put that into perspective the UK Government's paper on how child maintenance is calculated is about 50 pages and that affects less than 2 million and has nothing to do with trade between UK and the other 27 EU Members.

Isn't it a little illogical to cling to positive economic predictions against the (initially suppressed) consensus of detailed research?

Consensus among whom? Those who voted leave or those who voted remain. Why was such research not included in the Remain campaign when trying to convince people that leaving the EU would be disaster?

It would fall as much as 9 to 10 per cent in five-years alone and gross domestic product would drop by 6.25 per cent

Even if GDP dropped by 6.25% UK would still be in 3rd place in EU zone as would be ahead of Italy who are currently fourth in EU.

But that also seems daft when the point was allegedly to save 0.7 % of GDP

Proving my earlier comment that the vote to leave was obviously not just based on money. Maybe to some freedom to choose is more important?

Which individual MP on QT are you referring to who denies all this? Which MP knows better than all the government departments listed above ?

Names that come to mind are; Jacob Rees Mogg, Clare Perry, Nigel Farrage, Dominic Rab. Can't remember them all of my head.

the true causes of Brexit, the massive inequality between London and the South against virtually everywhere else

I think there is a lot of truth in that. Since the de-industrialization of UK in the 1980s the North South divide has widened. Was the vote leave an objection by those North of Watford that they have been passed over since the 1980s. However, Scotland voted to remain by a big margin?

83 pages is nowhere near enough to describe the potential impacts of Brexit.

Agreed but it's better than the analysis of an unnamed MP on question time whose analysis you preferred upthread!

Why is that better than unrestricted access to a market on our doorstep worth $18.8 trillion of 500 million consumers

EU represents about 17% of World trade. The other 83% is outside the EU.

Where are the forecasts saying on any Brexit scenario we will now rise to 4 th ,3rd or 2nd place? Answer - silence

Not possible for UK to be higher than 5th in the World as; USA, China, Japan and soon India, will always be bigger GDP that UK due to their overwhelming populations.

Since Scotland's devolved parliament places a different emphasis on social responsibility and that Scottish industry has to a fair extent got over the deindustrialisation phase it understands that being IN Europe is an advantage.
The fact that many leave voters voted for more austerity and no tangible improvements is the real problem.

Mogg has a vested interest in the UK economy crashing.
Farage is just a shit stirer who also makes money on fluctuationg markets.
Raab, who appeared not to know that most of the trade the UK does with the EU goes between Dover and Calais, which is surprisingly close to Dover. Do you mean these 'unbiased experts'?

{EU represents about 17% of World trade. The other 83% is outside the EU.}

Very nice as a financial statistic but bugger all to do with reality.
My point being that the stuff the UK trades with the EU is stuff that the UK wants, not the theoretical 83% of stuff, much of which the UK doesn't want. Some countries trade huge amounts of coal, aluminium, steel etc, but the UK doesn't want it, or at least not in that quantity.
You have to read and understand the actual practicalities of the statistics.
What the hell would the UK do with 25Million tonnes of aluminium, which might be bought a bit cheaper if the UK is out of the EU?

Thanks for naming the MPs

Jacob Rees Mogg, Clare Perry, Nigel Farrage, Dominic Raab.

Only three of these are MPs. They are not leading economists. Whilst it's loyal and brave to have faith in them I doubt they have the personal skills to plough through the OBR and ONS figures in detail. If I recall JRM did outsource some work to obtain private accountant/ economist report but it was discounted within about 24 hours.

It's simply more logical to accept the consensus among over 80% of economists and the figures from the Treasury, the Department for Exiting the EU, Industry, Environment, International Trade and the Home Office as summarised in all the linked articles.

As I've said a better standpoint is sacrificing part of the economy is worth it (although those reliant on food banks and the NHS etc are then further exposed).

Also LeClerc as I know you know this but it's not just about looking at % trade with EU countries- it's the 80+ other countries we have existing (or previously imminent) trading agreements with as part of the EU.

lonelyplanetmum
Absolutely. It is a bit like shopping at several supermarkets.
One may have cheap baked beans, another cheap bread and another cheap milk etc. Only by making a price comparison and then working out whether to buy the cheapest in each, or factor in the extra time and travel to go to all 3, or get more expensive at say 1 supermarket.
With Brexit however, so far no one has suggested HOW anything will actually be better for the UK. Until trade deals are actually ratified, they are worthless. IMPORTANTLY, with the WA NOT signed, trade deals cannot be concluded with anybody. Due to WTO rules ALL interested parties in any 'deal' have to be involved and unsurprisingly the EU is involved with most aspects so bringing it back to the situation that the WA, as bad as it might be, has to be signed.
The EU can veto future trade deals with the USA and other countries.