More Brexit lunacy

All except one I believe varian. They don't seem to have produced one on the cake and eat it version of Brexit.

maizie Davis lies constantly

This forecast does not just deal with one brexit scenario but all possible brexit scenarios. The cost to our country, to our children and grandchildren if brexit were to actually go ahead would be horrendous.

www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-governments-own-brexit-analysis-says-the-uk-will-be?utm_term=.gv25wdBJY#.rjroR8023

Davis even cited forecasts that new trade deals with countries such as the US, could lift trade by 40%,

I'm sure a lot of people would like to see those forecasts...

You really do seem to enjoy attacking me personally Primrose - and there was me thinking that was against the rules However, attacking someone is a very unpersuasive argument.

Well structured and interesting post Maizie. I have a feeling that nothing will convince the Brexiteers until we see what happens.

This from the Guardian sums up my views well and seems to resonate with the standard brexiteer view we hear on here.

Davis has long argued that economic forecasting is a bogus science, particularly as Treasury estimates of the impact of the Brexit referendum proved, at best, premature, and at worst, wildly over-pessimistic. Iain Duncan Smith took to the airwaves on Tuesday morning to continue in a similar vein, claiming the latest leak was “highly suspicious” and should be “taken with a pinch of salt”. The trouble is that the whole Brexit project is based on an even shakier forecast, which is that the benefits of future trade deals will outweigh any short-term EU impact. Davis even cited forecasts that new trade deals with countries such as the US, could lift trade by 40%, a far cry from the 0.2% benefit to GDP seen now by officials. The difference is that the sceptics have tables, charts and spreadsheets; the Brexiters have only their own faith to propel them forward.

The FDA has stated that Bakers extraordinary comments on the civil service forecasts undermines government and insults the civil service.

What whitewave said

No

Wasn't that all covered off by Gina Miller and her court case?

There is to be a crowd funded challenge to Article 50 and the way it was invoked.

“Brexit was built on sand. When we look at the past the rhetoric and hype about the will of the people, and examine the facts and events that led to brexit we find that the Article 50 process was not followed properly and that our Article 50 notification was predicated on a decision that has no basis in law. Despite what many people were led to believe Parliament had never delegated the withdrawal process to the people, and has never made the withdrawal decision itself. With no constitutionally valid decision, the process is invalid and illegal.

Professor AC Grayling Master.

The DExEU assessments seem to line up pretty well with assessments made since the EU Referendum

Just a few:

LSE Economics blog:

From an international trade perspective, the choice of the UK to leave the EU is remarkable. Leaving a large free trade area like the EU will most likely be trade- and welfare-reducing for the UK. Without a new trade agreement, relative trade barriers will change such that trade with the EU will become relatively more expensive, resulting in trade diversion away from the EU and trade creation with the non-EU world. The balance between these developments will most likely be trade- and welfare-reducing, as trade barriers between the UK and the EU – the largest trading block in the world – increase. This gloomy evaluation is corroborated by almost all trade analyses of Brexit. The estimates range between roughly a 1.5% reduction in GDP to more than 7%, depending on the assumptions made on how Brexit will take shape. Only ‘Economists for Brexit’ have produced a positive estimate, but this is a clear outlier in the available estimates (see David Miles 2016 for a survey).

blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/05/22/global-trade-cant-replace-the-value-of-the-eu-single-market-for-the-uk/

Business Insider:

But how do the government's official forecasts stack up with those produced by other economic forecasters, research houses and financial institutions?

Many analysts have not produced long term forecasts publicly, choosing instead to focus on the shorter term. However, a handful have, and Business Insider took a look a few forecasts that cover similar time periods to the government's 15 year horizon.

Worth reading as it looks at a number of analyses from different organisations

uk.businessinsider.com/how-government-leaked-brexit-economics-paper-compares-to-other-forecasts-2018-1

The current assessments seem more to confirm other analyses than to contradict them.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the latest assessments were not produced by any department like the Treasury, but by the exbrexit department headed by Davis.

The economic case against Brexit is now unarguable

I think you're making incorrect assumptions GG. What did I want the report to say?
I'm not damning anything out of hand - where did I do that?
I did ask a lot of questions that have not been answered and I really don't expect one, as that would mean you actually read the reports.

I agree that they should be used as comparators - compare them with what has actually happened! Have you even read the report? There's 15-year predictions in the 2016 one from the Treasury - how have they changed compared to the recent predictions? You're arrogant enough to criticise people who have read and analysed the reports but I doubt you even know the contents.

But as you say, you're happy with information from people who manage to get everything wrong. It supports your ideology. That's all that seems to matter.

What gg says

But you don't examine the evidence do you Primrose. If what is predicted is against what you want it to say you damn it out of hand unless everything happens exactly as it suggested.

But these reports are not able or intended to be exact in that way are they? The writers do not suggest they are. They give a direction of travel and the direction of travel is that we are already suffering from the approach of Brexit. We can still use such reports as comparators to tell us under which set of circumstances we will suffer more or even more. I would certainly rather such reports were used in the way they were designed than rely on what is reported back to us by those who want Brexit whatever damage it does.

Peston
“It beggars belief that Steve Bakers critique of government’s own forecasts that Brexit will make us poorer is that civil service evonomists have not modelled Mays nebulous “cake and eat it” trade deal with the EU, which the EU 27 regard as less plausible than the tooth fairy.”

No, there were Treasury assessments that gave the immediate impact of a vote to leave, ww.

"This document provides a comprehensive, rigorous and objective analysis of the immediate impact of a vote to leave"

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

This is the document I am talking about. The immediate impact of a vote to leave. I think you have not bothered to ascertain how accurate these predictions were, now they are measurable. I'd hardly call examining the evidence 'poo pooing'.

Can we pronounce it Beano whitewave? Most of the extreme Brexiteers - actually just 30 of them in Parliament apparently, but holding a sway that is out of all proportion to their numbers - seem to be people who could have been characters in the days when it was first published.

primrose it is considered respectable enough for it to be shown to each individual cabinet member, none of which were allowed a copy.

Impact assessments and due diligence is always carried out in these sort of scenarios and are always given serious consideration. The point is all economic assessments except for one which was paid for by a Brexit billionaire have pointed to economic disaster on one scale or another.

All the economic forecasts are for post Brexit. I think that you are a bit premature in poo pooing them now.

With respect to the leaked Treasury reports on Brexit, do they have a respectable track record on Brexit predictions? They did publish some 'immediate impact' predictions before the referendum. I remember close to a million more unemployed and around a 5% drop in GDP.
Trouble is, for some predictions before the vote, the future can now be quantified and they were really off target.
When people have a problem predicting the next 12 months, I don't understand why you think they could be right over the next 15 years.

Lord Adonis is going to move to put the possibility of a second referendum on the table.

Anna Soubry

“IDS on R4 - “we have no idea where this is going to end up”!! God help us”

Very interesting interview this morning between Humphrey’s and a Lord Judge.

Humphrey’s spouted the same tired myths about the EU and government etc.

Lord Judge destroyed entirely all his biased questions.

Lord Judge should be on every day to stop all the rubbish.

New acronym

BINO

Brexit in name only