View Single Post
Old 18-10-2017, 19:51   #407
jonbxx
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: #Plagueisland
Age: 54
Services: VM VIP Pack
Posts: 1,712
jonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appeal
jonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appeal
Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick View Post
You cannot be seriously expecting me to believe something written from people paid from the very people we are trying to leave, surely?
It does beg the question why there haven't been full studies or peer reviewed papers having a pro-Brexit standpoint. I would have thought the combined cash of Tim Martin (worth around £200m) Lord Bamford (£3.1b!) and Jacob Rees-Mogg (£45m) would have paid nicely for a robust pro-Brexit paper somewhere

(I stand to be corrected if there's anything more substantial than a press release out there)

In the meantime, I will repost this link - https://benefitcostanalysis.org/site...1%20Brexit.pdf which shows the breadth of different sources all telling a similar story. Economics is in inexact science and I don't think anyone would disagree but if almost all reports lean in the same direction, it does seem like there's a trend towards a prediction of a negative impact.

Here's a summary on slide 10;

Quote:
Most studies conclude that best scenarii would lead the UK economy to suffer very lightly (around 1% GDP) or even experience net gains (see Booth et al. 2015) while the worst-case scenario envisage ‘only’ a 8% loss of GDP (see HM Treasury 2016).
After that, we're just arguing about how big really.
jonbxx is offline