Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Innocent Bystander posted:

Has anyone else noticed the remarkable resemblence between Nicola Sturgeon and Angela Merkel? Could be mother and daughter...

Well spotted - Tracey Ulman has also noticed and has created some howlers

Here: Merkel - Sturgeon

and an older one here: A Merkel

There are quite a few others

Enjoy

dayjay posted:

The decision to leave has already been made, prompted by the referendum result and supported by both houses, as has the involvement in parliament at the end of the two year period, again by both houses in line with our democratic processes.  The sooner we accept that and move on, and stop trying to build in repeated attempts to have another bite at the cherrythe better.  We don't want to become like the SNP do we, using every opportunity to push forward our own narrow agenda and to overturn what has been previously agreed? I've enjoyed reading this thread even if it has been occasionally frustrating and I recognise the passion that many contributors have on this subject but it has become a little repetitive and the question asked by the OP has been answered so this will be my last post here.  I look forward to the thread covering any future deal at the end of the process

dayjay, I think most of us realise we are pissing in the wind.

HMG under May's leadership dictatorship is going to make dam sure we leave, at ANY cost, to the economy and friendships included.

However, in parallel with expressing my views here, I have expressed my views with my MP (about as effective as making a couple of polite suggestions to TM herself) and, more usefully, have had some input to considering our future relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In other words - attempting to make the most of future opportunities.

In this thread I have several times invited people to set out their ideas of post-brexit opportunities and benefits that we should be developing. These things don't just "happen". To say the lack of response is disappointing, is an understatement and a half !

Perhaps you could start the ball rolling ?

Innocent Bystander posted:

Has anyone else noticed the remarkable resemblence between Nicola Sturgeon and Angela Merkel? Could be mother and daughter...

Sorry, typo there. LIke so many people used to fishy Scottish names Alex Salmon and of course the singer whomkept it simple, Fish, we all keep putting a t in her name. She does of course purport to be the Surgeon who will split off Scotland.

Don Atkinson posted:

dayjay posted:

The decision to leave has already been made, prompted by the referendum result and supported by both houses, as has the involvement in parliament at the end of the two year period, again by both houses in line with our democratic processes.  The sooner we accept that and move on, and stop trying to build in repeated attempts to have another bite at the cherrythe better.  We don't want to become like the SNP do we, using every opportunity to push forward our own narrow agenda and to overturn what has been previously agreed? I've enjoyed reading this thread even if it has been occasionally frustrating and I recognise the passion that many contributors have on this subject but it has become a little repetitive and the question asked by the OP has been answered so this will be my last post here.  I look forward to the thread covering any future deal at the end of the process

dayjay, I think most of us realise we are pissing in the wind.

HMG under May's leadership dictatorship is going to make dam sure we leave, at ANY cost, to the economy and friendships included.

However, in parallel with expressing my views here, I have expressed my views with my MP (about as effective as making a couple of polite suggestions to TM herself) and, more usefully, have had some input to considering our future relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In other words - attempting to make the most of future opportunities.

In this thread I have several times invited people to set out their ideas of post-brexit opportunities and benefits that we should be developing. These things don't just "happen". To say the lack of response is disappointing, is an understatement and a half !

Perhaps you could start the ball rolling ?

 

Don,

You may recall I did already respond to this request. As previously I'd love to be able to provide you with some succinct soundbite that summarised the pro-Brexit economic argument, sadly it's not an easy thing to do. There are multiple factors influencing the case and I could easily (had I the time to spare) write a structured, referenced white paper laying it all out.

If you are serious about wanting to understand the economic arguments for Brexit then I can only suggest you start Googling and reading.

Wish I had the time to help you out but Mrs Willy wants me screwing in the kitchen. Those cabinets aren't going to build themselves.

Regards,

Willy.

Whilst on my authorised tea break here, just another thought....

A number of folks have suggested that we should re-evaluate Brexit once we know what the costs will be. The problem as I see it is whose prediction of the costs would we use for this evaluation?

A few years ago, long before anyone imagined we'd get a referendum, let alone a leave vote, I recall some economic organisation (can't recall who) stating that the effect of Brexit (wasn't called that then of course) was in the range -5% to +3% of GDP depending on what the government did. Based on multiple sources I've tapped into, excluding the outliers I think this is probably a realistic range but there is little agreement between economists about where we would lie in that range even for the same policy inputs. Today on the radio (en route to Screwfix unsurprisingly) there were a couple of economists, both Professors IIRC, discussing this. One was stating that Brexit was bad economically and the other that it was good economically. 

Economics, even in the best of times, isn't a precise science and let's face it the field of economics isn't experiencing the best of times. As a discipline in is arguably in crisis after multiple recent and indeed ongoing failures.

Maybe it's time to bring Russell Grant and Mystic Meg out of retirement?

Regards,

Willy.

Willy posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

dayjay posted:

The decision to leave has already been made, prompted by the referendum result and supported by both houses, as has the involvement in parliament at the end of the two year period, again by both houses in line with our democratic processes.  The sooner we accept that and move on, and stop trying to build in repeated attempts to have another bite at the cherrythe better.  We don't want to become like the SNP do we, using every opportunity to push forward our own narrow agenda and to overturn what has been previously agreed? I've enjoyed reading this thread even if it has been occasionally frustrating and I recognise the passion that many contributors have on this subject but it has become a little repetitive and the question asked by the OP has been answered so this will be my last post here.  I look forward to the thread covering any future deal at the end of the process

dayjay, I think most of us realise we are pissing in the wind.

HMG under May's leadership dictatorship is going to make dam sure we leave, at ANY cost, to the economy and friendships included.

However, in parallel with expressing my views here, I have expressed my views with my MP (about as effective as making a couple of polite suggestions to TM herself) and, more usefully, have had some input to considering our future relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In other words - attempting to make the most of future opportunities.

In this thread I have several times invited people to set out their ideas of post-brexit opportunities and benefits that we should be developing. These things don't just "happen". To say the lack of response is disappointing, is an understatement and a half !

Perhaps you could start the ball rolling ?

 

Don,

You may recall I did already respond to this request. As previously I'd love to be able to provide you with some succinct soundbite that summarised the pro-Brexit economic argument, sadly it's not an easy thing to do. There are multiple factors influencing the case and I could easily (had I the time to spare) write a structured, referenced white paper laying it all out.

If you are serious about wanting to understand the economic arguments for Brexit then I can only suggest you start Googling and reading.

Wish I had the time to help you out but Mrs Willy wants me screwing in the kitchen. Those cabinets aren't going to build themselves.

 

Regards,

Willy.

Despite the Googling and reading, I haven't seen too many bright ideas about Brexit.

I had presumed that those on this Forum who had voted to Leave could easily list their hopes and aspirations regarding the economic opportunities that lie ahead.

Seems not.

Willy posted:

Today on the radio (en route to Screwfix unsurprisingly) there were a couple of economists, both Professors IIRC, discussing this. One was stating that Brexit was bad economically and the other that it was good economically. 

I semi-regularly read the blog of a reasonably renowned macroeconomics professor, and that kind of thing has been one of his bugbears for some time. Just because you can find a professor on each side of the argument and stick them on the radio together doesn't mean that each is equally representative of the view of academic economists in general.

It's a bit like it used to be with climate change - in trying to seek balance, the BBC would often draft a climate change denier in to offset any... Hmm, what's the term, asserter? Well anyway, you get the idea. But the apparent balance wasn't faintly representative of scientific opinion in general. Eventually the penny dropped, and the false impression of balance was dropped with it.

The overwhelming view among academic macroeconomists is that Brexit is almost certainly a bad thing economically. According, at least, to my learned friend. And I for one haven't had enough of experts. Gove, yes, experts, no.

Those who disagree with the macroeconomists need to make their case in detail, or point to clear, authoritative arguments elsewhere. Otherwise the rest of us are forced to join Don in his reluctantly pessimistic conclusion thus far.

Dave***t posted:

Willy posted:

Today on the radio (en route to Screwfix unsurprisingly) there were a couple of economists, both Professors IIRC, discussing this. One was stating that Brexit was bad economically and the other that it was good economically. 

I semi-regularly read the blog of a reasonably renowned macroeconomics professor, and that kind of thing has been one of his bugbears for some time. Just because you can find a professor on each side of the argument and stick them on the radio together doesn't mean that each is equally representative of the view of academic economists in general.

It's a bit like it used to be with climate change - in trying to seek balance, the BBC would often draft a climate change denier in to offset any... Hmm, what's the term, asserter? Well anyway, you get the idea. But the apparent balance wasn't faintly representative of scientific opinion in general. Eventually the penny dropped, and the false impression of balance was dropped with it.

The overwhelming view among academic macroeconomists is that Brexit is almost certainly a bad thing economically. According, at least, to my learned friend. And I for one haven't had enough of experts. Gove, yes, experts, no.

Those who disagree with the macroeconomists need to make their case in detail, or point to clear, authoritative arguments elsewhere. Otherwise the rest of us are forced to join Don in his reluctantly pessimistic conclusion thus far.

Blimey, now we're on to that other great scam: Climate Change. For those of us who voted for Brexit, it is not a case of endlessly rationalising to the naysayers the reasons for our disbelief in the EU.

An unelected Council of Ministers pouring endless diktats down on us little people far removed from Brussels is a good starting point. The endless inability of the EU to get its books accepted is another. The obvious and blatant loss of control of our borders, our legal system and just the sheer cost of being a member of the disfunctional club should be just about enough.

Me, I voted for the EEC way back in the day but not for the unaccountable multiheaded Hydra  that exists today.  I obviously don't give a toot for your faith in macroeconomists and would place more trust in examining sheep's entrails than pour over their hopeless predictions. They are about as consistently successful as the climate fantasists in the Met Office are about the weather, maybe slightly less so.  And as for Climate Change.......

andarkian posted:

Blimey, now we're on to that other great scam: Climate Change. For those of us who voted for Brexit, it is not a case of endlessly rationalising to the naysayers the reasons for our disbelief in the EU.

An unelected Council of Ministers pouring endless diktats down on us little people far removed from Brussels is a good starting point. The endless inability of the EU to get its books accepted is another. The obvious and blatant loss of control of our borders, our legal system and just the sheer cost of being a member of the disfunctional club should be just about enough.

Me, I voted for the EEC way back in the day but not for the unaccountable multiheaded Hydra  that exists today.  I obviously don't give a toot for your faith in macroeconomists and would place more trust in examining sheep's entrails than pour over their hopeless predictions. They are about as consistently successful as the climate fantasists in the Met Office are about the weather, maybe slightly less so.  And as for Climate Change.......

People can bury their heads in the sane or coose in other ways to ignore climate change, but that won't make it go away: our climate IS changing - indeed has changed in my lifetime, and I don't need the hard data of measurements of things like sea temperature to tell me that, I have seen it for myself.

The one and only thing about which there is scope for debate is whether and to what extent anthropogenic effects are responsible or contibutory.

Innocent Bystander posted:

andarkian posted:

Blimey, now we're on to that other great scam: Climate Change. For those of us who voted for Brexit, it is not a case of endlessly rationalising to the naysayers the reasons for our disbelief in the EU.

An unelected Council of Ministers pouring endless diktats down on us little people far removed from Brussels is a good starting point. The endless inability of the EU to get its books accepted is another. The obvious and blatant loss of control of our borders, our legal system and just the sheer cost of being a member of the disfunctional club should be just about enough.

Me, I voted for the EEC way back in the day but not for the unaccountable multiheaded Hydra  that exists today.  I obviously don't give a toot for your faith in macroeconomists and would place more trust in examining sheep's entrails than pour over their hopeless predictions. They are about as consistently successful as the climate fantasists in the Met Office are about the weather, maybe slightly less so.  And as for Climate Change.......

People can bury their heads in the sane or coose in other ways to ignore climate change, but that won't make it go away: our climate IS changing - indeed has changed in my lifetime, and I don't need the hard data of measurements of things like sea temperature to tell me that, I have seen it for myself.

The one and only thing about which there is scope for debate is whether and to what extent anthropogenic effects are responsible or contibutory.

I wasn't going to contribute again to this thread but I've just realised Andarkian is simply a troll. This is classic behaviour - he can see the one debate fizzling out and is desperate to keep it going so sticks in yet another outrageous set of claims safe in the knowledge that he'll get lots of bites from people who know he's wrong.

Innocent Bystander posted:

andarkian posted:

Blimey, now we're on to that other great scam: Climate Change. For those of us who voted for Brexit, it is not a case of endlessly rationalising to the naysayers the reasons for our disbelief in the EU.

People can bury their heads in the sane or coose in other ways to ignore climate change, but that won't make it go away: our climate IS changing - indeed has changed in my lifetime, and I don't need the hard data of measurements of things like sea temperature to tell me that, I have seen it for myself.

The one and only thing about which there is scope for debate is whether and to what extent anthropogenic effects are responsible or contibutory.

Every day, in every way, I look out of the window and the climate changes, sometimes quite dramatically. Of course, the Romans grew grapes oop North for a while and people skated and had bonfires on the Thames during the 16th century. My back garden is full of huge Sarson stones as an end point for the last ice age. Yep, the climate certainly changes.

Now, you interrupted me considering all the great economists of our age, such as Vince the Cable who worked for Shell and Alex Salmond who scarily enough worked for RBS as an economist. Ed Davey has proven to be both an economics and climate change clown, I will continue my research....

Innocent Bystander posted:

andarkian posted:

Blimey, now we're on to that other great scam: Climate Change. For those of us who voted for Brexit, it is not a case of endlessly rationalising to the naysayers the reasons for our disbelief in the EU.

An unelected Council of Ministers pouring endless diktats down on us little people far removed from Brussels is a good starting point. The endless inability of the EU to get its books accepted is another. The obvious and blatant loss of control of our borders, our legal system and just the sheer cost of being a member of the disfunctional club should be just about enough.

Me, I voted for the EEC way back in the day but not for the unaccountable multiheaded Hydra  that exists today.  I obviously don't give a toot for your faith in macroeconomists and would place more trust in examining sheep's entrails than pour over their hopeless predictions. They are about as consistently successful as the climate fantasists in the Met Office are about the weather, maybe slightly less so.  And as for Climate Change.......

People can bury their heads in the sane or coose in other ways to ignore climate change, but that won't make it go away: our climate IS changing - indeed has changed in my lifetime, and I don't need the hard data of measurements of things like sea temperature to tell me that, I have seen it for myself.

The one and only thing about which there is scope for debate is whether and to what extent anthropogenic effects are responsible or contibutory.

Sand or choose, of course!

Penarth Blues posted:

Innocent Bystander posted

 

 

I wasn't going to contribute again to this thread but I've just realised Andarkian is simply a troll. This is classic behaviour - he can see the one debate fizzling out and is desperate to keep it going so sticks in yet another outrageous set of claims safe in the knowledge that he'll get lots of bites from people who know he's wrong.

Nope, not a troll just an arch sceptic who has the time and inclination to challenge any orthodoxy I don't believe in. You just happen to be providing me with plenty of ammunition in this thread on this forum. 

Brexit is a resounding success - Beer is up 3.6%, water is up 22%, Apple devices is up 25%.

Dave***t posted:

Willy posted:

Today on the radio (en route to Screwfix unsurprisingly) there were a couple of economists, both Professors IIRC, discussing this. One was stating that Brexit was bad economically and the other that it was good economically. 

I semi-regularly read the blog of a reasonably renowned macroeconomics professor, and that kind of thing has been one of his bugbears for some time. Just because you can find a professor on each side of the argument and stick them on the radio together doesn't mean that each is equally representative of the view of academic economists in general.

It's a bit like it used to be with climate change - in trying to seek balance, the BBC would often draft a climate change denier in to offset any... Hmm, what's the term, asserter? Well anyway, you get the idea. But the apparent balance wasn't faintly representative of scientific opinion in general. Eventually the penny dropped, and the false impression of balance was dropped with it.

The overwhelming view among academic macroeconomists is that Brexit is almost certainly a bad thing economically. According, at least, to my learned friend. And I for one haven't had enough of experts. Gove, yes, experts, no.

Those who disagree with the macroeconomists need to make their case in detail, or point to clear, authoritative arguments elsewhere. Otherwise the rest of us are forced to join Don in his reluctantly pessimistic conclusion thus far.

The overwhelming view of experts was that it would be bad for us not to join the Euro.

The overwhelming view of experts in 2007 was that the economy was doing fine.

The overwhelming view of experts was that if we voted to leave there'd be an immediate recession.

And while still playing out the overwhelming view of experts was/is that QE was/is a good thing......watch this space.

If we ignore the QE for now then it's Willy 3 consensus of experts 0. Maybe you can understand why the field of economics has been described as being in crisis. 

Better not get me started on consensus of experts in the field of medicine/diet.

Willy.

Willy posted:

The overwhelming view of experts was that it would be bad for us not to join the Euro.

Who knows ... maybe things would have been better if we had joined the Euro.  Though it wasn't the "experts" who for the main said it was bad for us not to join the Euro; it was (a) a political position and (b) so called experts who felt joining the Euro was to their advantage.  Classic example of political view vs expert is Blair's push for the Euro vs Brown's measured "at some point in the future the time may be right to join the Euro".

The overwhelming view of experts in 2007 was that the economy was doing fine.

It was doing fine ... though underwritten by huge amounts of personal debt ... just like now (the debt).  The economy was doing well, until it hit a precipice mostly caused by outside factors (if I understand it correctly).

The overwhelming view of experts was that if we voted to leave there'd be an immediate recession.

Actually no ... that was the headline; but most experts were more nuanced and were talking about after leaving.  So far the economy is being boosted by increased debt (see comments above).  So far (post the referendum) the economy is surviving, but don't ignore the potential for precipices which has been increased due to the decision to leave.

And while still playing out the overwhelming view of experts was/is that QE was/is a good thing......watch this space.

The alternatives would have been worse!  And of course QE possibly staved off the risk of recession mentioned above.

If we ignore the QE for now then it's Willy 3 consensus of experts 0. Maybe you can understand why the field of economics has been described as being in crisis. 

I'm not sure though there is a consensus on any of those things though.  There is the view put forward as being the consensus so as to support a position taken for other reasons, but thats not the same.

The problem with all the things you mentioned (well 1 & 4) is that the result of doing something (or in the case of the Euro not doing something) is known because it happens; but the result of doing the opposite is an unknown quantity.  2 & 4 on your list were the result of actions/inaction, and perhaps by assuming there would be a recession if we voted out, the actions taken prevented that recession; just like in 2007 the assumption that the economy was doing alright meant there was a failure to anticipate a recession.

So we saw what happened in the Euro Zone countries when the UK wasn't part of the Euro; but perhaps if the UK HAD been part of the Euro; and the UK economy was run as part of the Euro Zone then things would have worked differently and the scale of the 2008 recession would have been greater.  If the UK had been part of the Euro Zone from the beginning (and a more integrated part of Europe) perhaps the UK could have given different direction ... put pressure to refuse the PIGS states from joining in the first place.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

Better not get me started on consensus of experts in the field of medicine/diet.

Anything to do with diet you need to do one major thing ... read the actual published literature and not the headlines in the newspaper.

andarkian posted:

Penarth Blues posted:

I wasn't going to contribute again to this thread but I've just realised Andarkian is simply a troll. This is classic behaviour - he can see the one debate fizzling out and is desperate to keep it going so sticks in yet another outrageous set of claims safe in the knowledge that he'll get lots of bites from people who know he's wrong.

Nope, not a troll just an arch sceptic who has the time and inclination to challenge any orthodoxy I don't believe in. You just happen to be providing me with plenty of ammunition in this thread on this forum. 

Actually that is close to the definition of a troll.

If you were really wanting to "challenge any orthodoxy [you] don't believe in"; then you would be doing it with facts and debate, rather than using name calling behaviour and rhetoric.

Brexit is already an economic disaster - by the time the anniversary of the vote comes round I will have made 5 trips to the Eurozone and have paid well over £1000 more for my Euros than I otherwise would have.

The real economy has already given its verdict - who wants the currency of an offshore banana republic with a broken political system?

Eloise posted:

andarkian posted:

Penarth Blues posted:

I wasn't going to contribute again to this thread but I've just realised Andarkian is simply a troll. This is classic behaviour - he can see the one debate fizzling out and is desperate to keep it going so sticks in yet another outrageous set of claims safe in the knowledge that he'll get lots of bites from people who know he's wrong.

Nope, not a troll just an arch sceptic who has the time and inclination to challenge any orthodoxy I don't believe in. You just happen to be providing me with plenty of ammunition in this thread on this forum. 

Actually that is close to the definition of a troll.

If you were really wanting to "challenge any orthodoxy [you] don't believe in"; then you would be doing it with facts and debate, rather than using name calling behaviour and rhetoric.

Ooooh, that's a bit harsh! I think that on most of my posts there has been factual content, but looking up at your own it would appear to be quite fact free and completely subjective.

However, I do like the rough and tumble of online debating and actually have no problem with anyone getting one over on me, as I expect to take what I dish out. Am afraid you are currently just grist to my mill. 

When I look at the postings of most of the contributors to this thread elsewhere on this board I have nothing but respect for their technical and scientific competence in the area of HiFi, and in most circumstances am very happy to just bow to their superior knowledge and good advice. 

This play area is not called a Padded Cell for nothing. 

Pev posted:

 

The real economy has already given its verdict - who wants the currency of an offshore banana republic with a broken political system?

 

I assume you are talking about the EU ��

andarkian posted:

Eloise posted:

Actually that is close to the definition of a troll.

If you were really wanting to "challenge any orthodoxy [you] don't believe in"; then you would be doing it with facts and debate, rather than using name calling behaviour and rhetoric.

Ooooh, that's a bit harsh! I think that on most of my posts there has been factual content, but looking up at your own it would appear to be quite fact free and completely subjective.

However, I do like the rough and tumble of online debating and actually have no problem with anyone getting one over on me, as I expect to take what I dish out. Am afraid you are currently just grist to my mill. 

Accept the leave campaign was based in part on lies and deceit (without resorting to the old chestnut of "so was the remain campaign") and I might accept your comments there.

Or perhaps offer some constructive suggestions of what you see as the benefits of leaving the EU as others have suggested.

As for your posts being full of factual comments ... well thats debatable but if you would like to quote some parts where you have been factual I'm all ears and willing to withdraw my suggestion that you are acting like a troll if you can demonstrate it.

andarkian posted:

Pev posted:

The real economy has already given its verdict - who wants the currency of an offshore banana republic with a broken political system?

I assume you are talking about the EU ��

And you claim you are NOT a troll???  Perhaps you could examine the exchange rates for the Euro and Sterling for 2 seconds and tell us which is going up, and which down over the past 12 months.

Eloise posted:

andarkian posted:

Pev posted:

The real economy has already given its verdict - who wants the currency of an offshore banana republic with a broken political system?

I assume you are talking about the EU ��

And you claim you are NOT a troll???  Perhaps you could examine the exchange rates for the Euro and Sterling for 2 seconds and tell us which is going up, and which down over the past 12 months.

Swings and roundabouts! Just watch what happens over the next few days and months with the Dutch, French and German elections. Of course the pound took a battering at Brexit, it was an easy victim for the currency marketeers. They'll soon have newer victims to pick on. The pound was overvalued anyway as it was perceived as a safe haven within the EU. 

andarkian posted:

Swings and roundabouts! Just watch what happens over the next few days and months with the Dutch, French and German elections. Of course the pound took a battering at Brexit, it was an easy victim for the currency marketeers. They'll soon have newer victims to pick on. The pound was overvalued anyway as it was perceived as a safe haven within the EU. 

Everyone says that NOW ... yet they were clamouring to ensure the pound stayed at a high value before.

Eloise posted:

Willy posted:

The overwhelming view of experts was that it would be bad for us not to join the Euro.

Who knows ... maybe things would have been better if we had joined the Euro.  Though it wasn't the "experts" who for the main said it was bad for us not to join the Euro; it was (a) a political position and (b) so called experts who felt joining the Euro was to their advantage.  Classic example of political view vs expert is Blair's push for the Euro vs Brown's measured "at some point in the future the time may be right to join the Euro".

The overwhelming view of experts in 2007 was that the economy was doing fine.

It was doing fine ... though underwritten by huge amounts of personal debt ... just like now (the debt).  The economy was doing well, until it hit a precipice mostly caused by outside factors (if I understand it correctly).

The overwhelming view of experts was that if we voted to leave there'd be an immediate recession.

Actually no ... that was the headline; but most experts were more nuanced and were talking about after leaving.  So far the economy is being boosted by increased debt (see comments above).  So far (post the referendum) the economy is surviving, but don't ignore the potential for precipices which has been increased due to the decision to leave.

And while still playing out the overwhelming view of experts was/is that QE was/is a good thing......watch this space.

The alternatives would have been worse!  And of course QE possibly staved off the risk of recession mentioned above.

If we ignore the QE for now then it's Willy 3 consensus of experts 0. Maybe you can understand why the field of economics has been described as being in crisis. 

I'm not sure though there is a consensus on any of those things though.  There is the view put forward as being the consensus so as to support a position taken for other reasons, but thats not the same.

The problem with all the things you mentioned (well 1 & 4) is that the result of doing something (or in the case of the Euro not doing something) is known because it happens; but the result of doing the opposite is an unknown quantity.  2 & 4 on your list were the result of actions/inaction, and perhaps by assuming there would be a recession if we voted out, the actions taken prevented that recession; just like in 2007 the assumption that the economy was doing alright meant there was a failure to anticipate a recession.

So we saw what happened in the Euro Zone countries when the UK wasn't part of the Euro; but perhaps if the UK HAD been part of the Euro; and the UK economy was run as part of the Euro Zone then things would have worked differently and the scale of the 2008 recession would have been greater.  If the UK had been part of the Euro Zone from the beginning (and a more integrated part of Europe) perhaps the UK could have given different direction ... put pressure to refuse the PIGS states from joining in the first place.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

Better not get me started on consensus of experts in the field of medicine/diet.

Anything to do with diet you need to do one major thing ... read the actual published literature and not the headlines in the newspaper.

 

 

Would agree with you on being unable to prove the counterfactual however you can't disprove it either. Certainly on the Euro I'd suggest that on the balance of probabilities we'd have been worse off if we'd joined.

I would suggest that the counterfactual also applies to QE. Whilst you can assert that it staved off a recession this cannot be proven. More importantly there is a case that the longer term damage to the economy from QE may be worse than a shorter term recession. The background to Keynsian economics was forged in a time when money supply was a lot tighter and less fluid than it is these days. It has been suggested that Keynes would be horrified by what has been done in his name. But again I accept that it's difficult to prove the case on QE without tapping into the multiverse.

On 2007 I'd liken it to the man who jumped off a tall building. As he passed each floor he could be heard to say "all right so far". If the economist's models were any good they would have spotted the signs in 2007 that all wasn't well. Or maybe more importantly if they gotten out and talked to more businesses they'd have spotted the rumblings which were apparent in mid 2007.

My original point is that when it comes to predictions of what the macroeconomic effect of any particular action might be there are plenty, and varied, to choose from hence the difficulty in selecting one, or even a narrow confidence interval, for the effect of Brexit. Can't recall who but someone once said something along the lines of "the purpose of economic predictions was to make astrology look respectable".

I have long since learned to treat headlines , especially in health matters, with extreme scepticism. Where a topic is of interest I do dig deeper into the published research to understand the design of any experiment and the full results. We have to acknowledge however that there is a growing issue even in the published literature in that there is a bias towards publishing research where there is a positive outcome. A paper where the conclusion of the research is that no effect was found is more difficult to get published. Hence it's becoming increasingly difficult to get a full picture across the spectrum of a subject.  

As an aside:  It's frustrating when bad science is then used as the basis of public policy. For example I know that at my local NHS health centre diabetics are being told that they are at risk of heart disease and should eschew fats in favour of carbohydrates. I also know that my sister in law works for a company contracted by the NHS to treat diabetics. They have a good track record in treating, reversing, type 2 diabetes with diet, especially reducing carbohydrate intake. At the risk of annoying some they also make a profit from doing so whilst being cheaper that the NHS can do it themselves.

Diesel cars anyone?

Regards,

Willy.