Britain outside the EU

That still makes it an opinion, not fact

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The reality is that it's an opinion from a survey of nearly 100 economists drawn from a wide range of organisations including PwC, Chatham House and Royal London Asset Management.

Yes, we've seen predictions of doom on our economy before...and look what happened!

They are right to talk about the 'economic mirage' caused by the pandemic, but I think they are unduly pessimistic about the future.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, we've seen predictions of doom on our economy before...and look what happened!

They are right to talk about the 'economic mirage' caused by the pandemic, but I think they are unduly pessimistic about the future.

Their predictions have a basis to them. Increase trade barriers and costs, and the economy suffers.

Throughout 2022, we will be increasing checks on goods imported from the EU at UK government-run sites such as Sevington and, where space permits, at the ports themselves.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:

England's most lucrative fishing port defied Brexit doom-mongers by posting a record haul for 2021.

Brixham Fish Market, which often nets most by value, landed £43.6million of seafood.

The Devon port topped last year’s £35.8million and the previous £40.3million record from 2017.

It comes after the UK quit the EU’s Common Fishery Policy in December 2020, returning control of who fishes in British waters and how much they can take for the first time since 1973.

Critics had claimed EU seafood export rules would cripple the industry but sources say Brixham prepared well.

Barry Young, boss of Brixham Trawler Agents, said the port had thrived.

He said: “Despite the pandemic and Brexit rumours we’ve seen our sales to domestic markets and exports to the EU increase nicely.

"The positive story is well reflected in these record sales numbers.”

[BenMcr]

That's great news no matter what your view of Brexit.

[ianch99]

I'd glad the Telegraph is so well regarded around here:

Time is running out to prove Brexit is not a historic failure

But it’s not just that the benefits of Brexit have so far proved worryingly elusive. It’s worse than that. The initial impact, from chaos with customs checks and a heavy blow to business investment has been almost overwhelmingly negative, and things could get a lot worse.

Goods coming into Britain face a fresh avalanche of paperwork, threatening more supply chain dislocation and to overwhelm our ports. The Northern Ireland conundrum – which stumped Lord Frost and failed to merit a mention in the Prime Minister’s New Year message – has been handed to Liz Truss, whose recent ascendency is better evidence of the Government’s weakness than her strengths. Food prices could spiral further after a year in which inflation had hit 5.2pc by the end of November.

For the time being, the Government still has the electorate on its side but only just perhaps. While a recent Ipsos MORI poll found just 24pc of the population favoured rejoining the EU, results of a separate survey for Opinium showed that 42pc of people who voted Leave in 2016 had a negative view of how Brexit had turned out so far.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I'd glad the Telegraph is so well regarded around here:

Time is running out to prove Brexit is not a historic failure

That's why the Torygraph is such a good journal. The good. bad & ugly gets said. More than can be said about the Grauniad where Brexit is concerned (as far as I can tell).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Their predictions have a basis to them. Increase trade barriers and costs, and the economy suffers.

Throughout 2022, we will be increasing checks on goods imported from the EU at UK government-run sites such as Sevington and, where space permits, at the ports themselves.

The problem with these forecasts, as I have said before, is that they emphasise the debit side and are unable to calculate precisely the credit side (as it is the future, and dependent on business decisions).

This is why they are so pessimistic. You can calculate what you have lost, but not what can be gained through new opportunities. Until you know what the private sector plans, that is.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problem with these forecasts, as I have said before, is that they emphasise the debit side and are unable to calculate precisely the credit side (as it is the future, and dependent on business decisions).

This is why they are so pessimistic. You can calculate what you have lost, but not what can be gained through new opportunities. Until you know what the private sector plans, that is.

They are not "pessimistic", they are attempting to be realistic with the information they have - just because it doesn’t match your unbridled optimism (which isn’t even based on any data, just "opportunities"), doesn’t make it pessimistic.

Isn’t the debit side in the future, and dependent on business solutions?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problem with these forecasts, as I have said before, is that they emphasise the debit side and are unable to calculate precisely the credit side (as it is the future, and dependent on business decisions).

This is why they are so pessimistic. You can calculate what you have lost, but not what can be gained through new opportunities. Until you know what the private sector plans, that is.

Source?

Hope that helps.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problem with these forecasts, as I have said before, is that they emphasise the debit side and are unable to calculate precisely the credit side (as it is the future, and dependent on business decisions).

This is why they are so pessimistic. You can calculate what you have lost, but not what can be gained through new opportunities. Until you know what the private sector plans, that is.

They look at the whole picture. This is macro economics, not micro economics.

You seem unable to accept there is an economic cost to increased sovereignty. The two are a trade-off, like a see-saw. When one end is up, the other end is down.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They look at the whole picture. This is macro economics, not micro economics.

You seem unable to accept there is an economic cost to increased sovereignty. The two are a trade-off, like a see-saw. When one end is up, the other end is down.

OB hasn't said anything to support your statement. You can rightly infer from his words that the economic cost is currently being paid and that the future, the credit side, is dependent on business getting there.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

OB hasn't said anything to support your statement. You can rightly infer from his words that the economic cost is currently being paid and that the future, the credit side, is dependent on business getting there.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by business getting there? We're talking about the next 12 months.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Can you give me an example of what you mean by business getting there? We're talking about the next 12 months.

You might be talking about short term horizons but OB hasn’t set this. Under present circumstances, nobody can fix a timescale. But you can be sure that British business will take us forward in due course. Only Remainers would challenge that.

Hope that helps.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Can you give me an example of what you mean by business getting there? We're talking about the next 12 months.

Too many variables Andrew

In the next 12 months the EU could start to collapse, the Chinese economy could tank, the USA could be hit by riots and social unrest, Russia could invade . . well anybody I guess, and Covid could mutate into the biggest killer since the 'dinosaur' meteor strike.

Of course we can speculate, amass reams of data to analyse, and throw statistical charts all over . . but it's just guesswork isn't it . . the same guesswork as Brexit being as bad as some say