Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972911)

Describing emotion driven nationalist politics is irrational compared to say, economics, is an entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

If the glorious future was all sugar and candy surely the Government and Bank of England would be first to crow about it?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972911)

Describing emotion driven nationalist politics is irrational compared to say, economics, is an entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

If the glorious future was all sugar and candy surely the Government and Bank of England would be first to crow about it?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35972916)

So I take it that you think Brexiters are 'emotion driven' and 'irrational'? How condescending!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972915)

[COLOR="Blue"]What's that got to do with anything.

Carney got it wrong when he joined Project Fear in 2016. So it is right to be suspicious of his utterances now as to what will happen over the coming years. Too many variables and it doesn't take into account what our business enterprises will achieve. The guvmin stats assume 100% reduction in immigration!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972919)

At a cost of £150bn?

You may be fine but for many of our poorest communities paying that for a racially pure England isn’t going to cut it.

Your calculation of 90.7% is flawed. Economic growth forecasts use the current value of 100% as a baseline. So you’d be claiming that it’d be 9% growth vs 10% growth, which isn’t the reality.

Politics is why a Conservative Party who delivered a referendum, effectively delivered Brexit, would grow about a glorious future. The good reason they don’t is that there isn’t one.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:38 ----------



No, that’s not what I said. I’d be happy to hear economic arguments in favour of Brexit, indeed I’m sure there must be one out there? Sadly it’s drowned out by nationalism and xenophobia.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972911)

If the glorious future was all sugar and candy surely the Government and Bank of England would be first to crow about it?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35972922)

I don't think they assumed a 100% reduction in immigration but that emigration would exceed immigration. This would cause a '100%' reduction in net migration but not a 100% reduction in immigration.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35972926)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972919)

At a cost of £150bn?

You may be fine but for many of our poorest communities paying that for a racially pure England isn’t going to cut it.

Your calculation of 90.7% is flawed. Economic growth forecasts use the current value of 100% as a baseline. So you’d be claiming that it’d be 9% growth vs 10% growth, which isn’t the reality.

Politics is why a Conservative Party who delivered a referendum, effectively delivered Brexit, would grow about a glorious future. The good reason they don’t is that there isn’t one.

<SNIP>

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35972927)

Yeah that backs up what I said. 100% reduction in migration not immigration

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972905)

Yet nobody can make a compelling argument against him, Hammond or anyone else offering economic analysis of the situation. No fact based rebuttals, just emotion driven lines about sovereignty.

If Brexit happens (which I doubt) and it works it’ll be by pure chance. Not because of the efforts of anyone in the Leave campaign, anyone in the negotiations or anyone in government making preparations.

I have no love for the European Union, again attributing irrational emotions to a situation that doesn’t require it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35972923)

Well, quite apart from increased trade with the rest of the world, we will be free to bring in cheaper goods that haven't been the subject of EU tariffs designed to protect their own markets. That will also help the less well off in society. I bet that wasn't included in any economic forecasts!

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35972931)

The recently released scenarios from both the BoE and Treasury are both "worst case scenarios" and use the assumption the the UK get no FTA deal from anyone else in the world along with other "worst case" assumptions.

That is your fact based rebuttal and totally emotionless.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972932)

Of which it’s all entirely speculative. We’ve no evidence that any of this will actually happen or we will be better off for it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35972932)

Of which it’s all entirely speculative. We’ve no evidence that any of this will actually happen or we will be better off for it.

---------- Post added at 19:15 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------



Indeed those are things the BoE publicise, it’s not a secret.

Nobody has alternative, positive forecasts though. Just the glorious unquantifiable future that led to Brexiteers resigning from cabinet, it was so good.