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?

Is Tony Blair a struggling carpenter? Is Gina Miller an impoverished school dinner lady?

Talkinpeece ur putting everything down to the economy. We need to think differently about these issues. The point is people wanted someone to come up with a better plan to sort them out that doesn't involve being in the EU and doesn't involve a reliance on the economy not shrinking.

Otherwise Remain would have won.

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

And zero evidence from the Government that they have any desire to change things. Theresa May opining that 'austerity is over' rings extremely hollow when the wealthiest were the biggest gainers from the last budget.

@blackcurrantjam

Farage constantly refered Norway and Switzerland, pre-referendum, and how we could be “rich” just like them. There are videos out there that that splice together all the times he put forth the idea that we’d be “rich like Norway or Switzerland”; he made an economic argument for leaving again and again.

I’m not attacking your point of view, or your opinion, but I’m afraid you’re wrong on this one. Go and check.

The point is people wanted someone to come up with a better plan to sort them out that doesn't involve being in the EU and doesn't involve a reliance on the economy not shrinking.

Housing costs money
The NHS costs money
Workers' rights cost money
Education costs money

You're basically saying 'the people wanted all the good things about living in a civilised country without anyone actually paying for any of it'. That's nice, but not possible.

I'm sure Farage probably did say those things. Why would you make it up? I didn't take a huge amount of notice of him personally but if people did, ok. That's up to them.

Critically, underpinning it all is the ability to be more in control of who makes policy - whatever happens in the end or along the way. A chance to be more this, more like Switzerland, more priority on health, more like that, a chance to be free of the EUs jurisdiction. A chance, whatever the outcome, to make changes that we want to see.

MEPs and vetos are too far away, too big, too complex, too expensive. People wanted more localised power.

The 'state of the country' and 'lack of resources' that people were worried about are more controllable out of the EU.

The state of the country and the lack of resources were due to Government austerity policies. These are no more and no less controllable outwith the EU because they were entirely UK Government policies.

Maybe if Leave voters hadn't allowed themselves to be persuaded to scapegoat the EU then they might have realised that voting out the Tories and voting in a party that was willing to invest in housing, education, the NHS etc would bring around the change they wanted.

Pointythings perhaps it's the possibility of voting someone in who has fresh ideas and doesn't say sorry, it's not possible.

I'm sure Farage probably did say those things.
Spend a minute googling, it really doesn't take long to find Farage saying those things.

People wanted more localised power.
We have a Westminster Government which has completely hobbled Local Government. Where are the protests?
Where is the action from Westminster on health, housing, education, secure work, regional development? All things wholly within their power to deal with, but they choose not to.

You might be surprised blackcurrantjam, but we do have a say as part of the EU and have even proposed some of its laws. The Single Market was Mrs Thatchers big idea. Hence people like Johnson and Rees-Mogg whinging that May's deal will make us a vassal state, which tells you that we aren't at the moment.

Subsidiarity within the EU is about local power. It is Westminster that centralises.

The issues are U.K. issues not EU issues.

If we leave the EU we will still have to abide by their rules when we trade with them. The WTO - a body we have no control over - will control our trade. NATO will still dominate foreign policy. The ECHR will still have jurisdiction.

We will gain nothing and lose much.

@blackcurrantjam

Thanks, that's all I wanted you to acknowledge.

A moment ago, it sounded like you were suggesting that you knew very well how the majority of people voted, and why they voted:

“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. “

The idea that nobody made an economic argument for Brexit is simply not true, and there's a bucket load of scans, videos, blogposts and newspaper articles out there to prove that.

It reasonably follows, therefore, that, since the argument was made, a proportion of people voted because they believed that argument; because they thought the country would be better off.

If you’d like to retract that statement, then fine; but don’t shrug and pretend you didn’t try to imply that all Brexit voters were aware of the economic risks.

@blackcurrantjam

Sorry, I forgot to include another quote of yours:

“The majority of the leave narrative pre-referendum was about having a say.”

You can’t brush past these deliberate falsehoods you’ve just put out there and direct the conversation elsewhere.

You’ve said something provably false in support of your argument.

This whole thread was about economic experts and how they should, or should not, weigh on people’s Brexit opinions.

Perhaps be good enough to acknowledge that you’ve injected falsehoods regarding that subject, and then perhaps we can engage on the concepts of “freedom” and local democracy.

@blackcurrantjam
ur putting everything down to the economy. We need to think differently about these issues. The point is people wanted someone to come up with a better plan
How exactly does one deal with the issues without money?
Are you the Corbynite on my FB who said that spending does not come from taxes?
What country should we model ourselves on ?

There is no point slagging off the status quo unless you know where you want to get to.

jm all of it is true at the same time

People voted for more control
People voted for the possibility of change, the possibility to be richer, different, whatever
People were aware of the risks that it wasn't the case that they would be richer in particular - they were made quite clear by the experts lol
And still they voted leave

You're getting in a twist by your own refusal to acknowledge and respect that these things are legitimate and ok. Spend less time arguing paternalistically about why people were wrong and more time trying to accept and respect.

I'm trying to get you out of particulars and into the underlying fundamentals of the leave vote, which to me is both obvious and legitimate.

Talkinpeece I'm no corbynite, no lol

I do think we need to think differently about how we run the country and getting out of the EU is part of this, from agricultural policy, to fishing, to our nuclear policy, to environmental policy, to our trading policy and so on. And I know I'm not alone, as quite a few other million people agree with me.

I do think we need to think differently about how we run the country and getting out of the EU is part of this, from agricultural policy, to fishing, to our nuclear policy, to environmental policy, to our trading policy and so on
How are you going to run the country without money ?

To think differently about how we run the country - what does that even mean?

We are part of a world community with ever increasing globalisation. All the policies you mention are dependent on other countries. We need to cooperate and share power with other countries to influence the environment, nuclear power, fishing and agriculture.

We can not make these policies on our own. We need agreement and cooperation. Leaving the EU isolates the U.K. and strips us of both actual power and the ability to influence.

Brexit will castrate the U.K.

The point is people wanted someone to come up with a better plan to sort them out that doesn't involve being in the EU and doesn't involve a reliance on the economy not shrinking.

But they didn't come up with a plan to do this, did they? The government had two years to put together a plan that would be acceptable to Leavers. Farage et al have been working on leaving the EU for decades. Nobody. Came. Up. With. A. Workable. Plan.

Why's that, do you think?

to our nuclear policy

And how many people outwith the nuclear industry had ever heard of Euratom befre the referendum or realised that voting to leave the EU meant withdrawing from Euratom? What new aspects of nuclear policy do you want to see?

You don't know what people voted for blackcurrantjam and it's just as paternalistic of you to pretend that you do. The only positive that was bandied about was the implied promise to spend more on the NHS. It's not possible to say how many voted for this primarily.

However - people may have voted for more control. What evidence have you that Westminster is going to give them the control they would like?

People voted for the possibility of change, the possibility to be richer, different, whatever
Some would like change, some are resistant to change. Some are willing to take a gamble, some aren't. As a whole, the statement is pretty meaningless. However, after two and a half years the champions of leave who promised easy pickings and trade deals don't appear to be delivering the goods. Trade deals with India - not on the cards unless there are more visas.

If people were aware of the risks they were dismissed as 'Project Fear'. Instead it was all 'they need us more than we need them.

Bu few of us are saying that people were wrong. We are telling them that the champions of the Leave Campaigns, Gove, Johnson, Farage et al. were some of the biggest con men in history. Gove and Johnson's faces when the result was announced gave the game away - they weren't delighted like the people in Sunderland were. Most of the problems of this country can be solved by Westminster, if the will was there. So far the will isn't there.

we need to think differently

I think it is fair to say that it would be helpful if the people who represent the leave side stopped posturing and starting thinking.

The ERG have campaigned for Brexit for years
but they still have no coherent plan for what they want
Singapore in the North Sea involves destroying British agriculture and industry.
They have no other ideas.

The time to think differently is BEFORE you jump out of the plane, not AFTER

The point is people wanted someone to come up with a better plan to sort them out that doesn't involve being in the EU and doesn't involve a reliance on the economy not shrinking.

Two and a half years ago we had Leavers on these threads telling us that they trusted the Government to get on with it. Now they are bleating about Treason May. They are also trying to rewrite history and say that no one promised it would be easy, when that is exactly what was promised - no Leaver to my knowledge said before the Referendum that it would take two generations to see the benefits. Rees-Mogg only came out with his 50 years after the Referendum, and after he had made sure that he'd moved his money making ventures to Ireland - not much faith there in the UK, is there?

These are all legitimate worries and arguments. I'm not sure people agreed with them when they voted leave.

Talkinpeece, I don't think people believed there's not going to be no money - black and white thinking there. less money can mean lots of things. there is an argument to say that we need less economic 'bloating' - less wealth would be healthier in fact - its an interesting perspective.

moussemousse most of your post I'm hearing is about cooperation. Cooperation and collaboration can happen outside the EU for sure. We can make new policy that works for our country and can encourage other people/countries to do the same. This is an argument that I don't think Leave voters really believed and the experts telling us otherwise, such as the university experts - they were out in force at one point - just came across as restrictive and implausible.

recently, we need to leave the EU before the planning really starts. Indicated by some who were saying, vote out, then vote the tories out. So people were aware that they needed to vote out first.

Buteo, I don't know the proportion of people who would have considered nuclear policy. some will some won't. the underlying philosophy is the same - more control of what, how, when etc

we need to leave the EU before the planning really starts
Why ?
How long will the UK thrash around with no plans at all getting poorer and more divided
before the ERG come up with a plan?

Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre
Decide what to do, tell people you are going to do it, THEN do it.
The other way round causes crashes