Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

'Hard Brexit with no trade deal could cost UK economy £400billion by 2030' Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You probably won't remember this, but before it was fashionable to accuse the EU of swamping us in red tape, the red tops frequently aimed similar criticism at the UK government.
    Maybe, but that doesn't mean EU regulation is a good thing. Frankly a concerted push towards ISO standards would be far more beneficial than more EU standards.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    Maybe, but that doesn't mean EU regulation is a good thing. Frankly a concerted push towards ISO standards would be far more beneficial than more EU standards.
    I agree. But in any market, there is always going to be pressure to regulate it. Take our own capitalist government who are looking to impose caps on energy bills which will ironically push up prices across the board. At least the EU have genuinely reduced mobile phone roaming prices.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    "18 per cent loss of GDP growth by the end of the next decade."

    If £400,000M is 18% of GDP growth, then GDP growth if we did have a trade deal would be £2,222,222M and it would be £1,822,222M if we didn't have a trade deal.

    Our current GDP is £1,922,626M

    I don't know about you, but I am not greedy. If the UK had a GDP of £3,744,848M by 2030 I would settle for that.

    The problem with a trade deal is that it would take an awful lot of time and effort and be a major distraction from buying golden elephants to decorate the M6.

    And the moral of this story is that it is a number plucked from thin air
    I think you have considered the figures all wrong, that is £400bn over the next 12/13 years, or an average of about £30bn a year, if we assume it is a linear basis, i.e. if the lost growth in the first year is 5bn then in the second it with be 10bn (15bn total) and the third 15bn etc then the average lost growth is about £5bn a year, in other words the economy would be about £60bn smaller (a little under £1000 per capita) in 2030 if we have a hard brexit vs whatever the non hard brexit scenario the £400bn comes from is.

    £60bn is about 3% of current GDP so it means a loss of growth of about 0.2% or so
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsfantanoo)
    We don't know if any of them are accurate. Because guess what. We're still in the EU. The biggest concern is that the vast majority of reputable forecasts predict that brexit is going to do economic harm.

    imagine being dumb enough to think that because economic forecasts haven't been accurate (which isn't true), it'll automatically mean the exact opposite will happen. You have reached peak stupidity. Well done.
    Are these the reputable forecasts that said we would be in recession now with hundreds of thousands of jobs already lost and all the big city banks already leaving the city as opposed to the ~1.5% growth that we have seen in the year since the referendum, the average of nearly a thousand jobs a day added to the economy, and the banks having minimal job exodus and plenty of people moving in?

    It is the same people over and over again predicting doom if we go against the European Project and again and again being wrong about it. The OECD said that joining the ERM would be good (see Black Wednesday), that joining the Euro would be a good thing (see Eurozone crisis), and predicted significantly reduced 2016 growth in the event of a leave vote. Unsurprisingly today then their £40m from the European Commission helped pay for them saying that we should reverse brexit was reported the BBC overlooked these things and instead focused on the thing that almost everybody agreed would happen: sterling would stop being overpriced.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Are these the reputable forecasts that said we would be in recession now with hundreds of thousands of jobs already lost and all the big city banks already leaving the city as opposed to the ~1.5% growth that we have seen in the year since the referendum, the average of nearly a thousand jobs a day added to the economy, and the banks having minimal job exodus and plenty of people moving in?

    It is the same people over and over again predicting doom if we go against the European Project and again and again being wrong about it. The OECD said that joining the ERM would be good (see Black Wednesday), that joining the Euro would be a good thing (see Eurozone crisis), and predicted significantly reduced 2016 growth in the event of a leave vote. Unsurprisingly today then their £40m from the European Commission helped pay for them saying that we should reverse brexit was reported the BBC overlooked these things and instead focused on the thing that almost everybody agreed would happen: sterling would stop being overpriced.
    Brexit hasn't happened yet. Try again. (Wait, are you seriously bragging about 1.5% growth?)

    Again, not an argument. You can't look at past examples and conclude that current studies are wrong. That's lazy. But you can get away with this because it's TSR but in an academic environment you'll be ripped apart.

    These studies weigh up the probabilities of what sort of deal we get. And then they use that weighted system to predict what the economic impact of that is using advanced statistics tools. They're by no means a certainty and don't account for any unknown variables. But your whole argument is based on this idea that suddenly a new variable pop up out of nowhere and help brexit. Ironically every time say "past studies aren't accurate" you cite events whereby what actually occurred was WORSE than what was first foreseen...

    All we can do is hope for the best. I hope for the sake of our country that brexit is successful and brings prosperity. But im not going to ignore experts.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsfantanoo)
    Brexit hasn't happened yet. Try again. (Wait, are you seriously bragging about 1.5% growth?)

    Again, not an argument. You can't look at past examples and conclude that current studies are wrong. That's lazy. But you can get away with this because it's TSR but in an academic environment you'll be ripped apart.

    These studies weigh up the probabilities of what sort of deal we get. And then they use that weighted system to predict what the economic impact of that is using advanced statistics tools. They're by no means a certainty and don't account for any unknown variables. But your whole argument is based on this idea that suddenly a new variable pop up out of nowhere and help brexit. Ironically every time say "past studies aren't accurate" you cite events whereby what actually occurred was WORSE than what was first foreseen...

    All we can do is hope for the best. I hope for the sake of our country that brexit is successful and brings prosperity. But im not going to ignore experts.
    Oh I do love the "brexit hasn't happened yet" when people bring up the forecasts for the last 12 months, I mean if these forecasters are reporting their 2018/19 forecasts as 2016/17 they definitely can't be taken seriously.

    Specifically for the OECD forecast lets look at the reporting on it and let's not bother with the express, let's go for the independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7060081.html

    "Brexit-related uncertainty has prompted the OECD to downgrade its growth forecast for the UK this year to just 1.7 per cent, sharply down from the 2.1 per cent GDP expansion the Paris-based economic organisation was forecasting only in February."

    So the June forecast showed 1.7% the actual final figure, but with this caveat (which I actually slightly misread): a vote to lead would lead to a reduction in growth vs staying in the EU of 0.5% for 2017 and 2018 and 1.5% in 2019 (the hit in 2016 isn't explicitly mentioned).

    The EU and its predecessors have used the same playbook for decades with no real evidence to support it. Why did we join in the first place? Ultimately because the world wars did not hit us as hard economically as continental neighbours and we started from a stronger position anyway, consequently post war they had far stronger growth than us for longer due to a bigger and longer reconstruction effort, having to play catch up, ironically it all ended in the 70s and they all slowed down to the same pace as the UK. We had to join because it was the only way to enjoy their levels of growth and not become an irrelevance, we did enjoy their levels of growth but not because we had accelerated. Time and time again it's "go along with the European project or face ruin" even though going with the flow is what has caused that ruin (again, black wednesday and the eurozone crisis)

    It is also some interesting chicanery to say that because the way in which the forecasts have been wrong is such that the outcome is worse therefore this time that too will be the case, the forecast isn't wrong because it's predicting good news that turns out bad but because it is predicting bad and will be even worse. I'm also quite confused as to how 1% growth in the second half of last year is worse than <1% growth over the same period, or recession as 71% of these economists you're putting your faith in forecast. Gyles Brandreth put it perfectly last year on HIGNFY when talking about leaving the ERM "At the beginning of the day we did not know what was going to happen, while it was happening we didn't know what was happening, and when it had happened we did not know what had happened."

    p.s. my favourite economic forecast is the inflation forecasts since, in recent years at least, no matter what the forecast for the next few years is from 3 or 4 years in the future it will be 2% and stay there forever more.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Oh I do love the "brexit hasn't happened yet" when people bring up the forecasts for the last 12 months, I mean if these forecasters are reporting their 2018/19 forecasts as 2016/17 they definitely can't be taken seriously.

    Specifically for the OECD forecast lets look at the reporting on it and let's not bother with the express, let's go for the independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7060081.html

    "Brexit-related uncertainty has prompted the OECD to downgrade its growth forecast for the UK this year to just 1.7 per cent, sharply down from the 2.1 per cent GDP expansion the Paris-based economic organisation was forecasting only in February."

    So the June forecast showed 1.7% the actual final figure, but with this caveat (which I actually slightly misread): a vote to lead would lead to a reduction in growth vs staying in the EU of 0.5% for 2017 and 2018 and 1.5% in 2019 (the hit in 2016 isn't explicitly mentioned).
    Don't be condescending. Fact is that you can't say brexit forecasts have been proven wrong when it hasn't happened. Are you seriously trying to dispute that?

    So you've cited the independent. Yet earlier you were bragging about 1.5% growth (which shows how pathetic this country's economy has become) Final figure was in fact 1.8%. We did do well in the final quarter of 2016 but there's no need to be pedantic on my part.

    It says that growth will be lower by 0.5% not that it's actually going to be that. You've also cited a report that's a year old. And due to the statistical nature of these reports this report is basically ancient. As I said, you'll easily get away with this sort of laziness on TSR.


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The EU and its predecessors have used the same playbook for decades with no real evidence to support it. Why did we join in the first place? Ultimately because the world wars did not hit us as hard economically as continental neighbours and we started from a stronger position anyway, consequently post war they had far stronger growth than us for longer due to a bigger and longer reconstruction effort, having to play catch up, ironically it all ended in the 70s and they all slowed down to the same pace as the UK. We had to join because it was the only way to enjoy their levels of growth and not become an irrelevance, we did enjoy their levels of growth but not because we had accelerated. Time and time again it's "go along with the European project or face ruin" even though going with the flow is what has caused that ruin (again, black wednesday and the eurozone crisis)

    It is also some interesting chicanery to say that because the way in which the forecasts have been wrong is such that the outcome is worse therefore this time that too will be the case, the forecast isn't wrong because it's predicting good news that turns out bad but because it is predicting bad and will be even worse. I'm also quite confused as to how 1% growth in the second half of last year is worse than <1% growth over the same period, or recession as 71% of these economists you're putting your faith in forecast. Gyles Brandreth put it perfectly last year on HIGNFY when talking about leaving the ERM "At the beginning of the day we did not know what was going to happen, while it was happening we didn't know what was happening, and when it had happened we did not know what had happened."

    p.s. my favourite economic forecast is the inflation forecasts since, in recent years at least, no matter what the forecast for the next few years is from 3 or 4 years in the future it will be 2% and stay there forever more.

    This argument again doesn't make sense. You've fundamentally assumed that nothing would have happened to our economy had we not been in the EU. We do 50% of our trade with them, I can't even begin to construct such a scenario.

    My god, it takes a special kind of naivety to blame black wednesday on EU, or even cite it as an example of economic instability.

    We're not in the Eurozone so that crisis is largely irrelevant to us.

    I put faith in economists not due to blind faith but because I've seen how they've forecasted it. And i find it laughable how philosophical your approach to brexit is.


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    p.s. my favourite economic forecast is the inflation forecasts since, in recent years at least, no matter what the forecast for the next few years is from 3 or 4 years in the future it will be 2% and stay there forever more.

    That's not an economic forecast. That's this country's target inflation rate. 2% inflation is perfection. The MPC is largely responsible for it.

    If you had even a very basic understanding of this country's macroeconomic policies you'd know.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Can Theresa May just her **** together and stop telling us how hard brexit will be (We knew this last year) and just get on with it. DO SOMETHING, MAKE PROGRESS
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EpicMan)
    Can Theresa May just her **** together and stop telling us how hard brexit will be (We knew this last year) and just get on with it. DO SOMETHING, MAKE PROGRESS
    She can't. The EU is facing a lot of internal issues - Eurosceptics in numerous countries are on the rise and everyone is waiting with baited breath to see how Brexit goes. You have separatists in Italy, Spain and numerous other countries rattling sabers and the EUs power is on the wane at the moment.

    The EU needs to walk a fine line - They need to make Brexit punishing without it being so terrible that sympathy is drummed up for Britain. They need the world to think it's 'Britain's Fault'. The only way for the EU to win is for Britain to lose while Britain doesn't want to lose.

    If Britain walks away smelling like roses, there is a real argument for leaving Europe for the other anti-EU parties.

    So, Britain has to try to negotiate with a party that wants Britain to fail and fail spectacularly and in fact -needs- Britain to fail spectacularly for its own well being.

    The best possible scenario for Britain is that Britain prepares for a no-deal Brexit and draws up trade agreements to be signed and ratified the day we leave. CANZUK comes to mind as a potential winning possibility for Britain in the Brexit deal.

    If Britain appears to be prepared for a no-deal Brexit, Britain will get a far better deal than if they go in trying to be accommodating. If Britain appears to be accommodating, the EU will push for every concession it will and try to get the deal to be punitive and hurt Britain as much as possible.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    She can't. The EU is facing a lot of internal issues - Eurosceptics in numerous countries are on the rise and everyone is waiting with baited breath to see how Brexit goes. You have separatists in Italy, Spain and numerous other countries rattling sabers and the EUs power is on the wane at the moment.

    The EU needs to walk a fine line - They need to make Brexit punishing without it being so terrible that sympathy is drummed up for Britain. They need the world to think it's 'Britain's Fault'. The only way for the EU to win is for Britain to lose while Britain doesn't want to lose.

    If Britain walks away smelling like roses, there is a real argument for leaving Europe for the other anti-EU parties.

    So, Britain has to try to negotiate with a party that wants Britain to fail and fail spectacularly and in fact -needs- Britain to fail spectacularly for its own well being.

    The best possible scenario for Britain is that Britain prepares for a no-deal Brexit and draws up trade agreements to be signed and ratified the day we leave. CANZUK comes to mind as a potential winning possibility for Britain in the Brexit deal.

    If Britain appears to be prepared for a no-deal Brexit, Britain will get a far better deal than if they go in trying to be accommodating. If Britain appears to be accommodating, the EU will push for every concession it will and try to get the deal to be punitive and hurt Britain as much as possible.
    I think the EU will not agree a trade deal with the UK and then leave the UK flailing around post brexit before making a deal that will give them all the advantages.

    Brexiters seem to think a no trade deal will be bad for the EU but in reality, it gives them more leverage because Britain needs to buy and import stuff like car components to keep car factories running and France and Germany make a lot of car components.

    Other countries will see whats happening and really put the screws on Britain in any trade deal they negotiate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    All this debate.

    Just come back I'm a few years time and we can start seeing who will have the last laugh.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 18, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.