There was no question, I voiced an opinion that Remain lied by saying they would honour the result of the referendum. I then made a comment that suggested some people have hindered and would like Brexit to fail, just to prove a point - cut off one’s nose to spite their face.
I completely agree with intellectual humility being important. Yet, you call out people voting Leave as RW, not aware of what they were voting for. You suggested I keep my head buried in the sand and yes I did laugh at the suggestion of electoral manipulation because that is what we are currently debating.
It’s not disinflation. The statement from the Treasury was that House Prices could drop by 10 -18% over the next two years if the country voted Leave. The criticism at the time was that their figures were wrong, based on Disinflation? However, the Housing market is up 35%.
But the Franklin Knight graph doesn’t show a negative of 10%-18%. On the graph it says little impact just after Brexit, it also says political uncertainty and further more says normalisation where the house prices are higher.
I can agree with your logic here. But it wasn’t a housing market crash.
Have you read the report? It says post referendum but not as a result of. It also, raises mitigating circumstances, such as holding fuel duty.
I never called Corbyn a Brexiteer just a Eurosceptic. Maybe he did arrive at his view/opinion on selective evidence but the fact remain the he was voted in by members as Party leader, Labour membership grew and he achieved more votes than Starmer - as many as 12m. Why was this? Why vote for someone who is not going to challenge?
So a report commissioned by Sadiq Khan, a remainer, finds UK/London worse off as a result of Brexit….hmmm.
If you read the report, it try’s to take into consideration the “Pandemic”, but it doesn’t take into consideration the Ukraine war. It doesn’t take into consideration the change of social/work practices since Covid - working from home, drinking at home, it may also not take into consideration the improvements in technology, like Retail chains moving towards self checkouts and AI.
The US reported 820,000 fewer jobs than predicted from 2023 - 2024. Was that as a result of Brexit? Have you questioned how the results compare across European trend? Hows Germany doing in comparison to its trend pre Brexit? They also seem to be suffering from a shortage of skilled workers.
So 8 years after the referendum, 3 years after Brexit, the EU is relying on London to help them out? Even changing their own guidelines to do so…. So the report suggests they are still trying to move clearing to the EU. So, does that suggest the scaremongering from Junker and the EU regarding companies moving from London may have been just that?
I mean, people are being critical of the UK and how slow it has been to implement Trade agreements, etc. Yet, the EU are still relying on the UK Banks?
My understanding was that as a result of Brexit London’s financial sector was going to see a mass exodus, everyone relocating to Amsterdam…however, it appears we are competing with NY for number one spot.
I get the pound tanked, but we were already told that was going to happen. Which makes the statement even more absurd. Before the vote, developers were giving investors the option to pull out of any agreements depending on the result. So, whilst I agree, foreign investment may have increased, it is speculative to what extent and to whether it held the market up.
Can we clarify what 1.8m fewer jobs means? My interpretation is that inline with Growth before Brexit, it was predicted that there would be 1.8m more ‘actual’ jobs created. So my understanding is that they never actually existed but were predicted.
The 500k job losses were speculated by the Treasury, it hasn’t happened - See my figures in previous post. Unemployment has stayed consistent, maybe even reduced.
It was a scare tactic, when questioned on it Osbourne actually done a U-Turn.
I am not debating the shit show since the Referendum, however, it was never a Government led mandate, the PM lied and jumped ship, we played our cards out in public due to in fighting, then the EU leaders played on the fears of the British public, gave us an unrealistic time frame to negotiate whilst delaying it themselves.
People complain about RW politics and yet the EU is a prime example of unfairly distributed finance and controlled policies and guess what, we don’t have a say in who is elected?
No, I asked you what the specific question that was asked in the referendum was. You say over and over again “that Remain lied by saying they would honour the result of the referendum” so I want to know what exactly you think they haven’t honoured with the UK actually having left the EU.
The people who have hindered Brexit though, are ironically the Brexiteers.
I think you’re conflating 3 separate groups of people here. I call out the many people who vote Leave as not being aware of what they were voting for. I don’t think I have explicitly called out a link to being right-wing in this section of the thread.
You aren’t quoting the statement from the Treasury. You’re quoting Osborne. There is a difference.
Do you understand what disinflation is?
Again, the point is not that house prices would fall, no matter what Osborne might have been trying to imply there. The point made by the analysis is that house prices could be up to 10-18% lower than where they would otherwise have been without Brexit.
Ignore the Knight Frank editorialisation. What the graph does show is that price increases (as opposed to price levels, which is what you seem to keep focusing on, which is not what any analysis has said) plummeted right after the referendum.
Read the graph. Read the axes labels. I already tried to point out in my initial paragraph on this that the graph shows the changes in price levels, not price levels themselves.
On currency levels? You mean an overnight 10% drop in the exchange rate is to do with fuel duty and not the very real, macroeconomic event that happened overnight?
I think you’re thinking about inflation, which is not a point that I have mentioned. But if you want to bring that into play, then this is what the report has to say about it:
Are you expecting a simple answer or do you want a detailed post-hoc election analysis?
Because if it’s the former, because the Labour Party platform was influenced by his socialist outlook and therefore offered attractive alternatives to the austerity that was ongoing at the time? And Labour didn’t set out an explicit position on a second referendum that stuck in voters’ minds, so to voters, as can be seen by the results in the recent elections, they remained as the biggest alternative to the Conservative Party?
No, you just framed it in the context of describing the other people in your post as “pro remain”, and using the word “yet” as a contrast to describe Corbyn, which leads one naturally to the conclusion that you’re describing him as a Brexiteer.
Regardless though, he was a Eurosceptic who campaigned for Remain during the referendum as someone who, despite his scepticism, believed that the country was better of in the EU.
On page 13, they detail the methodology they used, which suggests that they are modelling Brexit-specific effects, looking at the policy changes and their impacts to model the differences.
The rest of your post, in this light, is pretty irrelevant.
Did you read the damn thing? Of course they could have done exactly as you said, but there’s a reason they try to avoid things like that in the financial world, it’s called managing expectations and avoiding shocks.
I think you don’t understand the financial sector at all…
You don’t, because the UK lost its voting rights after it left the EU, which si to be expected.
The British government gave itself an unrealistic timeframe to negotiate. Have you forgotten about May’s triggering Article 50 unnecessarily?
Talk about moving the goalposts. The EU is unfortunately a perfect example of the difficulties in democracy, because you have to satisfy so many different constituencies and people, that the reality is that everyone is going to be unhappy to an extent.
Yeah that policy hadnt been a great introduction. My parents are in the group that will be cut. No Winter fuel payment and £20 under the pension credit threshold.
The jobs just dont exist. Over half a million of them in construction. Your industry I believe. If that’s in line growth its still damaging. The fonancial figures back that up. You cant defend this. Its like watching your house burning but arguing you’ll be warm.
Was it? We’re all poorer now, in real terms, not projected.
You basically had the Tory party that sold themselves to the far right loonies in the party (and elsewhere) and went balls deep on it. From that point they were screwed, and basically bent over backwards to defend it, hide it and then correct it by slowly raising the tax burden.
There were 2 ways to tackle this. Have an emergency budget to tackle the tanking pound and loss in revenue OR try to manage it by stealth. They did the latter trying their hardest to tell us how wonderful leaving is. We’re still waiting for a single benefit.
This is just rubbish imo. Any examples of such policies? The whole idea od the EU imposing laws on the UK has been debunked countless times. We had a vote on all of them and agreed to the vast majority.
We elected MP’s, thats how Farage was there (or not because he seldom went). The arrangement we had with the EU was a full on have your cake and eat it one.
It sucks, especially for people in your parents’ situation, where they’re near the cliff-edge (the government should probably have considered a tapered introduction), but if there’s any upside it’s this:
Unfortunately, there are no newer figures released yet (I checked the GOV.UK source linked in the article). Fingers crossed it will improve though.
I still don’t agree with the rhetoric around the proposed savings, I feel as though it’s just the government’s post-hoc justification over accepting something that the Treasury proposed, as opposed to having decided that it was necessary and good based on the evidence.
Yeah they’ll be ok but I’m trying to find a route to upgrading the heating system as there’s grants available to homeowners in Wales for this. I’m even chasing them for my own property.
I’m not arguing on this point or defending it. I asked how we were clarifying it, as it seemed we were looking at it from different angles.
The original point we were discussing was the Treasury’s threat of 500k people becoming unemployed which didn’t happen.
It’s on the Governments website. We all know that people voting leave can’t read…so lets leave the specifics in the long format.
You part you highlight from the LW Guardian also states…critics of the Treasury’s new analysis.
Disinflation, I thought it referred to inflation going down, yet the Treasury stated inflation would be rising. Maybe, I am wrong so please enlighten me. You suggested Disinflation, I just referred to it, tongue in cheek. Hence the question mark.
What you on about, I did read the graph you posted.
And why would I ignore the Franklin Knight ‘editorialistion’. You can’t post a graph in support of your argument and then tell me not to read the supporting analysis from the same source.
As far as I can make out from the graph is that it only shows a month on month, year by year change in house prices. It does not compare it to expected prices if we voted to remain and further more the graph states!!! Little impact!!!
I have read the axes and the Y axis says % and the X axis represents years.
And finally to your last paragraph. You state that you tried to point out that the graph shows the changes in price levels, not price levels themselves. So who is focusing on price levels here, me or you? Iv clearly referred to prices in my debate.
