Post Brexit forecast... How can we trust what experts say?

[mummmy2017]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-3902630/amp/Why-does-Bank-boss-Mark-Carney-getting-wrong.html

This guy got it wrong last time, how can we trust what he says?

Loletta- that's awful. I am in your same situation except the other way round. I have been in Italy for 20 years (and I don't have citizenship - yet!) This summer we were back in the UK and my dh was talking to the kids in Italian and got some snarky comment from a woman in my home town! I have also had the same here and, like you said, it makes me really aware of sounding foreign. It's shit, isn't it.

And mummmy I'm waiting for a reply to my question please.

Not all Leave voters are racist shits but all racist shits voted Leave. And saw it as a license to be racist shits more publicly.

recently
Yes it is really shit. When I go to Italy I feel like I have some respite from that feeling of not being able to open my mouth without feeling self-conscious.

Mummy it's great you are grappling with the stats. The ONS and Oxford figures seem pretty well researched.

This info was always known to the government too.

I remember seeing similar research from the LSE before the ref. The research team included a researcher called Wandsworth.I'd never read up on it before, but I googled it so DH could give facts and figures to his Dad.

EU citizens increase our economy significantly.

Looking forward to seeing mummmy answer that one Loletta.

Loletta there are Millions and millions especially in Londonwho know the world has globalised and welcome that fact.

Lonely, a simple example for your friend can be found in EU case law - the Belgian butter case. In the early days of the EU, Belgium rules specified that butter should be sold in cubes rather than rectangles. Other counties sold butter in rectangles. This meant that if they wanted to export to Belgium they had to change their whole production line and packaging, which was expensive. This reduced competition for the native Belgian producers. The EU courts said this was protectionist and they couldn't do it.

So if a U.K. company wants to export to the EU, as long as they comply with EU rules they can access the whole EU market. Outside that, they need to adapt to each country's individual rules, which can add or cost (making them more expensive than the local product) or just mean they don't bother exporting.

I don't really want to call some of my FB friends, friends any more tbh. I just keep in there to try and spread stuff like Stephen Fry's excellent recent explanations.

My point is that there is a mind set, quite a bloody minded one, that will think we can produce our own butter and not import or export any. Period.

There are people, quite a lot, who think that involvement in foreign trade, foreign organisations, import, export etc is all a bit unnecessary. Other than a bit of a sunny holiday once in a while, some just don't get the point of overseas interaction or how the world works now.

@mummy

Yes, you’re correct.

If you’re a British-born lower rate tax payer then you take more out of the country than you put in.

40% tax payers pay for everything in the UK. Only the top 20% of earners in the UK contribute more than they take.

The reason an immigrant is a net contributor, and you are a net taker, is that you, as a British person, on average make use of many more public services and benefits.

Im sorry, but it’s a fact. You are more of a drain on the country’s financial resources than an immigrant.

Does that mean you should be stoned to death in public? No.

A country is not a company. It is not run for the purposes of profit.

Regardless, there are other methods of contributing to the success of a country than tax. Even as a net taker from the economy, you’re still a valuable member of society due your productivity and output. You’re involved in the process.

If you want less immigration simply because you do, then fine. But don’t look to the numbers to support your argument, because they simply won’t.

Now that you know that higher rate tax payers pay for all of the services you enjoy in this country, take a second and imagine something.

What if they adopted your attitude. Not towards immigrants, but toward lower rate tax payers?

As a higher rate tax payer, I could argue that my vote should mean more than yours. After all, I’m in credit with the country, rather than debit.

If it’s all about levels of contribution, then I could argue that my opinion should be more important than yours. I’m one of the ones who pay for everything. Since you don’t, what business is it of yours?

Why should your opinion on immigrants count as equal with mine, when I’m a higher rate tax payer and have to carry the weight of any who don’t contribute?

In fact, why should someone who takes more out than they put in be allowed to vote at all?

That’s basically the attitude you are adopting towards immigrants. How does it feel turned around on you, by someone who helps pay for your family’s healthcare?

Uncomfortable, I imagine.

I could make those arguments. But I don’t. I’m happy to pay my tax. I’d be happy to pay more. And I’m happy for it to be used to pay for public services that everyone can use, regardless of which country they came from.

^^ Applause.

Mummmy
By your logic, if you can only take out what you have put in

• get rid of state schools
• get rid of children's wards in hospitals
• get rid of disability benefits
• get rid of pensions for low earners

Oh look, its what JRM proposes basically

Yeah what she said > @jm90914

Echos huge applause for jm909

It's interesting isn't it? To adopt the above terminology you could divide the higher tax paying elite into:

1. Liberals- who are happy for their taxes to be used to pay for public services that everyone can use, regardless of their social standing or which country they were born in.

1. Illiberals -whose ultimate agenda is to pay less tax, and to erode and replace their funding of public health and education with a 'survival of the fittest' private system ( JRM et al).

Which group do the non elite get into bed with?

Bizarre.

In ref to the OP, it's not a case of trust in financial experts. This isn't about economics, GDP, being financially, full stop.

This is about our methods of wealth creation, productivity, wellbeing, regulation, not aligning with the EU. It's not that hard to understand if you be quiet and listen. The majority of people who voted in 2016 want more autonomy and agency as a country in how we run the place. It's that simple. And that is not about being richer or poorer, it's about having a chance to be free.

So when the experts say we'll be poorer and when they said in 2016 we'll be poorer, millions of people said we don't care, we will take the risk

'being financially better off'

Capiche?

I'm not sure the majority of Brexit voters are prepared to be significantly, financially worse off for a notional idea of 'autonomy and agency'.

I have listened to Brexit voters in the last two years and while some agree with you many others do not. Many Brexit voters point to the state of the country and the lack of resources. They mention housing and health care. All to often the blame for the scarcity of these resources is placed on immigration but the concern is valid.

The country is failing the poorest. I understand and have listened to the cry of rage from poor areas. I can see why there was a protest vote.

You are taking a making a calculated risk but you are not speaking for the majority of Brexit voters. Most Brexit supporters still believe the country will be better off or no worse off. Most Brexit supporters adopt a 'project fear' is nonsense it will all be fine attitude.

blackcurrantjam how do you know that all 17-odd million people who voted Leave were happy to accept being worse off?

I don't think you really understand the leave vote.

You can pick at what I'm saying, dismiss it, try and discredit because it suits your narrative about leave voters being this or that or you can listen.

The majority of the leave narrative pre-referendum was about having a say. The biggest roars from audiences in all the debates etc were about being able to kick out the people in power if we didn't like the policies. If we don't like the Tory govt we can kick them out and vote someone else in. It's really so so simple. And people were willing to risk whatever consequences to see that happen.

This is about freedom from policy we can do nothing about.

The 'state of the country' and 'lack of resources' that people were worried about are more controllable out of the EU. These things rely on policy to change. Autonomy and agency as a country make policy change easier. See?

Pointythings because they voted leave not remain.

You could have voted in EU parliamentary elections, which are run by Proportional Representation. Somewhat more democratic than FPTP. And the UK government had a voice in the EU parliament - a veto on many things, in fact. The people YOU and others voted for in parliamentary elections made choices in the EU parliament - you were always free to vote in a government (say, a UKIP government) that might have made different choices.

Pointythings because they voted leave not remain.

They were told trade deals would be easy. They were told £350 million a week for the NHS. They were told that the economic downsides were all 'Project Fear' and would not happen.

Of course some people fully understood what they were voting for, but every single one of them? I know enough Bregretters to know that is just not so.

blackcurrant
The 'state of the country' and 'lack of resources' that people were worried about are more controllable out of the EU. These things rely on policy to change.
But the things people are angry about

• housing
• zero hours contracts
• austerity
• schools
• the NHS

are ALL down to Westminster and will be HARDER to sort out after Brexit because the economy will shrink.

There is nothing in the list above that is decided in Brussels, its ALL Whitehall choosing to ignore the regions and pursue austerity