Is the EU responsible for Brexit chaos

Micky why are you telling us what we already know?

Here’s something new to consider and debate....( April 2019)

https://brexitcentral.com/a-bad-withdrawal-agreement-can-be-renegotiated-in-the-context-of-post-brexit-realism-and-international-law/

Micky why are you telling us what we already know?

If you accept the contents of my last post a fair-minded conclusion might be that a second referendum without the baggage of a refugee crisis would possibly achieve a more rational result.

We all know that Micky. Tell us something we do not know.

An intersting link ads.

The link is more bogus analysis by Patrick Minford.  It is so misleading!  One of his assumptions in the the analysis is that when the UK leaves the EU, the EU will reduce tarrifs from 20% to 10% (for example) and there will be an even deaper trade alignment and association between the UK and the EU.  Again, fantasy.  The old goat needs to retire as he is well beyond his sell by date.

ads trots out Minford repeatedly as if he were the sage of Cardiff and the oracle of all reason. In actual fact, Minford is a maverick economist out of sync with the mainstream  I don't necessarily think that's a negative, however, you need to read his writings with a large dose of scepticism.

If irrational fears over migration skewed the referendum result isn't that in itself sufficient cause to run the referendum vote again?

Minford is out of sync' because he is often correct!

For transparency could you explain in economic detail why you consider that example fantasy Perrypower? Wouldn’t competitive forces kick in?

By the way Patrick Minford’s economic modelling appears to have been proven to be far more accurate, hence the treasury altering their own forecasting methodology, so somewhat harsh to dismiss his intellect out of hand.

One of the aspects to much of this debate is the tendency to generalise in dismissive and undermining fashion rather than be willing to retain an open mind and consider alternatives in detail, as part of good rational debate. 

A more recent paper dated January 2019 might also prove of interest.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/twec.12771

“The key point of this review is that this Civil Service work has taken a sharp turn in the past year towards the CGE methods we have been using throughout and has rightly in our view abandoned the original Treasury methodology of gravity‐based associations which are incapable of establishing causality. In this methodological sense, our work is certainly not, as repeatedly claimed by our opponents, an “outlier” but rather entirely “mainstream.” Where the Civil Service continues to differ from us is in their assumptions about the extent to which FTAs with the rest of the world can reduce current EU protection and also about the trade and border barriers that would be created between us and the EU. However, these assumptions of theirs are almost impossible to justify, since such barriers would be illegal and the scope for reducing EU protection is very large.

Once one substitutes reasonable assumptions into the type of world trade model used by the Civil Service, the trade effects estimated for Brexit become positive and potentially rather large. When one adds these to the less controversial gains from proceeding with UK‐created regulation of the economy, the control of unskilled immigration and the ceasing of our payments into the EU budget, the gains to the UK economy suggest that growth could rise by around 0.5% per annum on average for the next decade and a half.”

Minford is a unilateral free trade blinded evangelist. The concept of the EU or any trading block is an anathema to him and his Iike minded chums. Yet the political populist movement sweeping the world believes like Trump in restrictive tariff barriers and isolation.

Economists for Free Trade assume Brexit Britain will have no tariffs on trade with the rest of the world, no non-tariff barriers with any country, and that border costs with the EU will be zero. Their published papers are clear on this point. “We have assumed for the purposes of modeling that border costs are effectively zero,”

British government policy is not to drop all import tariffs unilaterally, but to “do trade deals”. Dropping all non-tariff barriers is an assumption not just that Britain would say yes to chlorine-washed chicken, but also to lead paint on toy imports and cars with no emission standards at all.

Assuming no border costs at Dover and elsewhere specifically ignores the EU’s insistence, recognised by Britain, on the importance of its own regulatory autonomy.

Economists for Free Trade achieve their suggested results simply because they assume leaving the EU has no trade costs and only potential benefits. They also erroneously claim that there will be no costs associated with deregulation and only benefits.

Minford is not only plain wrong he is dangerously mistaken. I take comfort in the fact that very few other mainstream economists follow his doctrine.

They already appear to have changed their modelling Mickeyfinn.....

”As this debate has unfolded between our critique and the Treasury, academic economists espousing the previous gravity methods have stayed strangely quiet while the Treasury dropped their methodology. Meanwhile we published another paper in which we tested a full ‘Computable General Equilibrium’ (CGE) model with gravity mechanisms against a plain Classical CGE trade model without them, to see how well each matched the UK trade facts. Using an elaborate and thorough Indirect Inference test we found that the gravity version was strongly rejected while the Classical one fitted the facts. Furthermore when we did the Brexit policies on the Gravity version the effects were much the same as with the Classical, our main tool; this was because Brexit gives gains with the rest of the world while not much disturbing our relations with the EU and so stirring up the negative gravity effects. Therefore it is clear that the anti-Brexit claims based on the gravity approach are invalid.

Unfortunately in the present fevered atmosphere, calm academic debate cannot take place; it is reminiscent of wars of religion where each entrenched side only wants to hear confirmation of its prejudices. One of the side benefits of Brexit occurring is that people may move on to normal technical discussions about optimal UK policies.”

If you read the article https://brexitcentral.com/a-bad-withdrawal-agreement-can-be-renegotiated-in-the-context-of-post-brexit-realism-and-international-law/ it states there is a way forward that mutually benefits by adopting a Canada plus.

”How would the EU/UK bargaining go from here? We can think of the ‘game’ now as a series of proposals and counter-proposals. Start from the opening WAPD ‘proposal’ for the status quo. This violates UK interests radically, breaching its basic ‘red lines’. The UK counter-proposal is to walk away to WTO rules and No Deal. This UK counter-proposal damages EU interests radically, as we have seen: they face world prices in the UK market and tariffs in both directions are paid by EU traders. In order to counter this the EU now offers an FTA: Canada+ which consists not just of zero barriers on goods (Canada) but also the plus of mutual recognition in services where EU interests are served by free trade, given a wide reliance on UK service industries. The UK wants either Canada or Canada+ more or less indifferently as its service industries are all highly competitive around the world. As noted earlier, while No Deal gives strictly better gains, the UK is likely to agree to this proposal for the sake of neighbourly relations. 

The bargaining round, which may well take a few years to play out, is therefore likely to be resolved by Canada+. We can essentially rule out any other resolution because all other alternatives leave one side unacceptably badly off –  beyond its red lines – or can be improved on by one side without making the other worse off.”

This message was last edited by ads on 19/05/2019.

Brexit Central and Minford take no account of the reality that Britain as an EU partner already has a very successful trade policy with the EU and the rest of the world. The EU currently enjoys a free trade policy with 39 other nations. Replacing or even replicating the value in trade terms of that situation under WTO terms will take more than a decade, probably longer. It's an unlikely and almost an impossible task.

Of course because of the catastrophic referendum result that advantage is now at risk. I understand that. It is politically unacceptable to consider any longer the gold standard of trading relationships Britain currently enjoys. It must now find or cobble together a far more inferior trading policy which everyone involved knows quite well will cost the UK very dear.

This and many others are among the consequences of leaving the European Union.

"Minford is a unilateral free trade blinded evangelist."

"Minford is not only plain wrong he is dangerously mistaken."

" the catastrophic referendum result "

Micky. You just cannot make these statements without justification. They are just your opinion. You were shown on your previous 'Brexit' Thread that Minford has been historically correct. Ads is doing a good and well suported job of arguing the current situation. When all we get from you is your opinion.

Patrick Minford as well as having a better track record than almost any other economic academic also comes across better in head to head argument.

Neither can you say that the referendum result is catastrophic. In economic terms the current situation shows this to be plain wrong. In political terms, if implemented, it re-gains us our democracy and you cannot place a value on that.

This message was last edited by tteedd on 20/05/2019.

The EU currently enjoys a free trade policy with 39 other nations.

Weasel word here is 'policy'.

Name one sovereign country that is not in the EU or a candidate for entry to the EU that has a full free trade agreement with the EU.

You seem to forget that trade agreements are bilateral.  Canada did not want services covered, or did you miss school that day during the negotiations.

tteedd- it re-gains us our democracy and you cannot place a value on that.

Britain has never lost its democracy or political control over its own affairs.

When all we get from you is your opinion.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Are not forums a place for opinion. It would be a strange and dull tome to read if all that is posted were facts. I respect your opinion, I expect likewise. 

Name one sovereign country that is not in the EU or a candidate for entry to the EU that has a full free trade agreement with the EU.

Depends what you mean by full trade policy. Japan and South Korea seem satisfied with their arrangements. Do you imagine the Uk will be able to negotiate anything superior to these? Do you believe Trump will hand the Uk an open door post-Brexit? I don't think so.

You just cannot make these statements without justification.

Minford's writings and statements are self evidently evangelical for free world trade.

Patrick Minford as well as having a better track record than almost any other economic academic also comes across better in head to head argument.

Where is your justification for that statement.? Compare and contrast please his statements and other economists to support your claim.

This is all an academic exercise now as very shortly the UK will crash out of the EU under a new Tory leader and the disaster will slowly come to pass. Most people now I am sure are simply resigned to the pain in order to see the thing over and done with. There is no gain from Brexit, absolute none.

tteedd- it re-gains us our democracy and you cannot place a value on that.

Britain has never lost its democracy or political control over its own affairs.

Now you know that is B..........

Firstly at this moment we are in a situation where the biggest democratic decision ever taken by the electorate cannot be implemented!!!

Secondly a massive amount of legislation is produced which our parliament has no control over. Moreover this is produced by the commision, an appointed (unellected) body.

When all we get from you is your opinion.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Are not forums a place for opinion. It would be a strange and dull tome to read if all that is posted were facts. I respect your opinion, I expect likewise. 

I cannot respect your opinion as you keep repeating it when it has been refuted.

Name one sovereign country that is not in the EU or a candidate for entry to the EU that has a full free trade agreement with the EU.

Depends what you mean by full trade policy. Japan and South Korea seem satisfied with their arrangements. Do you imagine the Uk will be able to negotiate anything superior to these? Do you believe Trump will hand the Uk an open door post-Brexit? I don't think so.

I said full free trade policy. You were trying to make it appear that we benefited from such with 39 countries through membership of the EU when it is not the case.

You just cannot make these statements without justification.

Minford's writings and statements are self evidently evangelical for free world trade.

Evangelists are normally taken to be people who spread religious beliefs. ie things that cannot be proven. It was ment to be a slur on that academic and I took it as such.

Patrick Minford as well as having a better track record than almost any other economic academic also comes across better in head to head argument.

Where is your justification for that statement.? Compare and contrast please his statements and other economists to support your claim.

Minford's writings and forecasts have been recommended on your previous BREXIT thread before. But if you wish to know more about him just type Minford into the 'YOU TUBE' search, You will be much elightened. I just did and got him giving a lesson in EU economics to a commons select comittee. There is lots more. Try it you may learn something but I suspect you don't really want to.

This is all an academic exercise now as very shortly the UK will crash out of the EU under a new Tory leader and the disaster will slowly come to pass. Most people now I am sure are simply resigned to the pain in order to see the thing over and done with. There is no gain from Brexit, absolute none.

Academic exercise? not really. You have already said it is all about opinion. The biggest gain from voting to leave and the whole shenanagins since the referendum may turn out to be that the electorate has woken up to how poor, self serving and undemocratic many of the representatives they have elected are. And I repeat, if we leave we regain our democracy.

I'm not playing ping-pong with you any longer tteedd it achieves nothing.

Brexit will benefit only the super-rich and the public are unwittingly doing their work for them. Under EU tax legislation billionaires are severely restricted in how they can legally avoid taxation. Many choose to live in Monaco of course. Many have decided long ago to work for Britains exit from the EU to allow the country to become a corporate tax friendly cash depository. I recommend you view this amusing but sadly accurate film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDFegpX5gI&t=437s

Indeed Micky, the Chancellor is already talking about reducing taxes.  But it won't be more than a 2p in the pound reduction so an average worker in the UK will save £500 per year max.  Whereas someone like Dyson will save 8 million pounds in the first year alone.  That is more than 32 people earn for the whole year for ten years.  

The £500 will not offset the cost of Brexit, about one third maybe for average Jack or Jill.  People like tteedd refuse to see that.  They have been so brainwashed about 'sovereignty', which of course is purely theoretical, that they will give up anything to claim they have it.  Or that their government has it.  Now they are claiming that unless we leave they will not have democracy in the UK.  It does not get any stranger than that!

It’s a poor show when the undemocratic bad losers have to resort to assault and criminal damage.