The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Cyclone]

Don't be ridiculous, it's self evident that the worse consequences will occur when we actually start to leave. Although the consequences of just voting to do so have already been fairly severe.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2016 at 11:54 ----------

 

We do not have a veto on tariffs. These are subject to qualified majority voting and have been for many years.

 

Fair enough, so we get a say and a majority is required.

We won't get a say once we've left will we.

[unbeliever]

Don't be ridiculous, it's self evident that the worse consequences will occur when we actually start to leave. Although the consequences of just voting to do so have already been fairly severe.

 

So where can I find you or any remain supporters condemning this report, cited heavily by the main remain campaigners such as Osbourne and the PM, for making ridiculous predictions during the campaign?

 

Exactly the same liars people are using exactly the same nonsense to try and convince us that now we have to stay inside the EU internal market, which is completely unacceptable as it means de-facto EU membership.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2016 at 12:00 ----------

 

Well, except for the fact that economists are saying that they can't predict the new £/$ or £/E value, but it's got further to fall.

Banks are already shifting jobs and functions abroad, and in the event of a hard brexit they are making plans to shift entire HQs and departments abroad.

 

But no, not remotely plausible, if you live in a bubble of blind optimism.

 

Anecdotes. The economy is growing and every day that goes by more false remain predictions from the Treasury and the IMF are proven false.

Having completely discredited themselves by their false predictions for the immediate result of the vote, they attempt now to wield the authority which they have just destroyed.

[The Joker]

I'm getting a little fed up with the remoaners trying to claim that the predictions of economic catastrophe pertained to actual Brexit and not the vote itself. This is clearly false and an attempt to cover up the fact that their side was proven emphatically wrong.

 

so what would you call the immediate slump in the £ following the vote then ?

 

An economic triumph ?

[unbeliever]

so what would you call the immediate slump in the £ following the vote then ?

 

An economic triumph ?

 

That was predicted by both sides. Although it has been a little bigger than expected.

 

I was attempting to point out the devastating loss of credibility, particularly for the Treasury, arising from the fact that their predictions were so profoundly wrong.

Why now should we take seriously their predictions for exiting the EU internal market or any other aspect of Brexit? We clearly shouldn't.

We can take these decisions for purely political reasons (which is pretty much what I have been doing all along anyway) in the full knowledge that none of the top tier economic experts have the slightest clue what the economic impact of any particular decision will be.

 

Our economic experts in the Treasury are either lying in their predictions or lying about the certainty we should attach to them (or they're idiots).

[Cyclone]

Devastating loss of credibility for the treasury is pretty minor compared to the lies exposed in the leave campaign after the votes were cast.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2016 at 12:55 ----------

 

Anecdotes. The economy is growing and every day that goes by more false remain predictions from the Treasury and the IMF are proven false.

Having completely discredited themselves by their false predictions for the immediate result of the vote, they attempt now to wield the authority which they have just destroyed.

 

How are economic forecasts "anecdotes". They're not stories of personal experience.

[tzijlstra]

So where can I find you or any remain supporters condemning this report, cited heavily by the main remain campaigners such as Osbourne and the PM, for making ridiculous predictions during the campaign?

 

You'll have to scroll back a hell of a long way, but the weeks vefore the referendum, when this stuff was posted by Osbourne, I condemned it, I clearly condemned the fact that Cameron thought Shock and Awe was a good strategy to sway votes and frequently referred to this stuff as scaremongering.

[unbeliever]

Devastating loss of credibility for the treasury is pretty minor compared to the lies exposed in the leave campaign after the votes were cast.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2016 at 12:55 ----------

 

 

How are economic forecasts "anecdotes". They're not stories of personal experience.

 

 

Individual businesses moving activity from one country to another are anecdotes.

 

You will have no problem at all finding my posts condemning misleading and in some cases false statements by leave campaigners during the campaign.

 

The remain campaign was based around lies about the immediate economic damage from a leave vote, but we're supposed to believe their a predictions for the actual exit date. I think not.

Now the fake soft brexit argument is relying on the same things. It's just not credible.

[tzijlstra]

What do you call a 20% reduction in the pound?

[unbeliever]

What do you call a 20% reduction in the pound?

 

See post #4895.

[Cyclone]

Individual businesses moving activity from one country to another are anecdotes.

When it's most of the international banking market in London then that's not an anecdote, it's a warning.

 

You will have no problem at all finding my posts condemning misleading and in some cases false statements by leave campaigners during the campaign.

 

The remain campaign was based around lies about the immediate economic damage from a leave vote, but we're supposed to believe their a predictions for the actual exit date. I think not.

Now the fake soft brexit argument is relying on the same things. It's just not credible.

 

It's disingenuous to pretend that predictions of economic damage were to occur immediately on a vote and not in fact on actually leaving.