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 âactualâ jobs created. So my understanding is that they never actually existed but were predicted.
The 500k job losses were speculated by the Treasury, it hasnât 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 donât 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 âthat Remain lied by saying they would honour the result of the referendumâ so I want to know what exactly you think they havenât honoured with the UK actually having left the EU.
The people who have hindered Brexit though, are ironically the Brexiteers.
I think youâre 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 donât think I have explicitly called out a link to being right-wing in this section of the thread.
You arenât quoting the statement from the Treasury. Youâre 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 youâre 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 itâs 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 didnât set out an explicit position on a second referendum that stuck in votersâ 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 âpro remainâ, and using the word âyetâ as a contrast to describe Corbyn, which leads one naturally to the conclusion that youâre 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 thereâs a reason they try to avoid things like that in the financial world, itâs called managing expectations and avoiding shocks.
I think you donât understand the financial sector at allâŚ
You donât, 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 Mayâs 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 ÂŁ20 under the pension credit threshold.
The jobs just dont exist. Over half a million of them in construction. Your industry I believe. If thatâs in line growth its still damaging. The fonancial figures back that up. You cant defend this. Its like watching your house burning but arguing youâll be warm.
Was it? Weâre 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. Weâre 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 MPâs, 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 parentsâ situation, where theyâre near the cliff-edge (the government should probably have considered a tapered introduction), but if thereâs any upside itâs 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 donât agree with the rhetoric around the proposed savings, I feel as though itâs just the governmentâs 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 theyâll be ok but Iâm trying to find a route to upgrading the heating system as thereâs grants available to homeowners in Wales for this. Iâm even chasing them for my own property.
Iâm 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 Treasuryâs threat of 500k people becoming unemployed which didnât happen.
Itâs on the Governments website. We all know that people voting leave canât readâŚso lets leave the specifics in the long format.
You part you highlight from the LW Guardian also statesâŚcritics of the Treasuryâs 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 âeditorialistionâ. You canât 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.
Since the military build up started at Ukraineâs border in late 2021, yes (there was also a mock run at build up and invasion in 2020, that heralded the invasion in 2022). I would have thought everyone would (should) have been rather very alarmed since then, but maybe that is just me.
Consistently since 2022, Russia has threatened to sink the UK beneath the waves with nukes on tv and itâs propaganda. And the UK has consistently been the chief villain in Russian propaganda since forever.
According to international law, there is no difference if western weapons are used in strikes behind the front (inside Russia), or just in the Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia and the UK is in no way a participant in the war. None of us outside Ukraine is, all we have helped them with is munitions and some money. Not that any Great Power cares very much about International Law.
This changes absolutely nothing directly for the security of the UK, although if Russiaâs invasion succeeds or fails; that of course has a massive consequence for the UKâs and all of Europeâs security of course. Itâs just precise missiles with limited range, none can reach Moscow or threaten Russian nuclear deterrence. It does grant Ukraine some desperately needed respite in itâs valiant defence though, since it means that they can more accurately hit command HQs, logistics, airfields and munition depots in areas previously thought âsafeâ by Russian war command. All strictly necessary targets to hit if one is to have a snowflakeâs chance in hell to stave off an invasion by a Great Power.
I mean, I am Norwegian, my government, Swedenâs government, Finlandâs governemnts, all of them very much support this very loudly. And none of us have nukes like the UK does. The UK in fact has a nuclear arsenal that alone can destroy Russia. If we who actually border Russia all think this is a very wise, extremely necessary, prudent (but too late) decision and say so publically loudly so Russia can hear it; i find it a bit odd that the UK, which has nukes and many of them; should be afraid; when our governments and generals are not more fearful than âyesterdayâ. That having been said, we are âalarmedâ, but then again, we have been so since the invasion started. Perhaps others are just a bit late in realising what started next door in February 2020.
To the best of my knowledge I have not said over and over again that Remain lied by saying they would honour the result of the referendum, from memory just recently. Nb. To the best of my knowledge.
I have suggested that the remain campaign may also have told lies, which is what we are still debating.
So, we have left the EU. Because of the result of a democratic referendum vote. However, we had to have a follow up additional vote in 2019 as to whether we should have a second referendum, why because Remain voters kept calling on it.
Even now, 8 years on from the referendum and after the 2019 vote, you still canât accept it can you? The people who voted leave in 2016 are still as stupid in 2019.
I havenât the time to back track through posts. But you have used the RW narrative a lot. But as I am unwilling to prove otherwise I accept your point.
Reading into it, his socialist look, as you refer to it was against the EU. Describing it as a danger to socialism.
From the BBC
The treaty, Mr Corbyn said, âtakes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers who will impose the economic policies of price stability, deflation and high unemployment throughout the European Communityâ.
He voted against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, and in one article on his website, said the EU had âalways suffered a serious democratic deficitâ.
Yes I did read it thank you. Did you read my post? Where did I suggest anything that they could have done? I just posted my observations from the link you used to support your point. Well, I am glad that they are taking their time managing âexpectationsâ, I mean their expectations at the time of Brexit were very focused on managing shocksâŚ.
You think I donât understand the Financial sectorâŚmaybe you are right, or maybe, just maybe, you are displaying that intellectual humility you proclaimâŚ.(for clarification I am being sarcastic).
Go on, please educate me on the Financial sector. Or Further more just provide evidence to support the EUâs claims.
I mean, if you want to go down the path of that jibe, then surely the answer is that youâre proving the point by ignoring that the title quite clearly states:
Do I need to highlight for you where it states âGeorge Osborneâs speechâ?
Yes, they criticised the new analysis based on⌠The speech. The report itself, which if you read it, makes it amply clear
I brought up disinflation to give an example about how people think that reduced inflation means prices must be going down. Deflation is when prices go down, disinflation is when the increase in prices slows down, i.e. what happened in the UK housing market until 2021, no matter whatever you may ascribe the reasons to.
There was literal house price disinflation post-referendum.
Little impact? There is a clear upward trend from 2015 until the referendum where prices were rising at least 2.5% y-o-y, and the price rices were increasing to peak around 5% y-o-y before a sharp reversal in that growth trend post-referendum.
I say editorialising because theyâre not going to come out and blame Brexit for it. âPolitical uncertaintyâ was sure as hell not just to do with whether the government was stable or not, given that the same trends continued until COVID.
âLittle initial impactâ is also rather poor commentary given how many deals would have been in the pipeline by then, which arenât easy to pull out from without realising a material cost. Naturally prices for those deals would be similar to pre-referendum trends, which would last for a couple of months as shown by the graph.
