4 ms·

Not only has that been ruled out, but costs to the UK of being outside the EU are currently being estimated at around £60bn/year, so we will in fact have £1.15b

Not only has that been ruled out, but costs to the UK of being outside the EU are currently being estimated at around £60bn/year, so we will in fact have £1.15bn a week less to go around. Meanwhile NHS bosses are already warning they can't hit the target budgets for next year, and we're about to see the currency deflate to a point where imports - including agricultural produce - is going to rise in price dramatically. There is a small chance that the EU might now decide to give more generous terms than they have indicated in the past to the UK, and all will be well. That looks unlikely however.

mattmanser 10y ago
Citation? Is the cost estimated by all the same people who said that a No vote would immediately tank the UK economy, even before the official Brexit? It grew instead. The problem with pronouncements like that is we've repeatedly seen economists and independent bodies be heavily politically biased in favour of the EU and seem to heavily exaggerate consequences and costs. As someone who is disappointed by our exit, I still want to see a reasonable assessment of our chances and frankly a lot of people like the IMF, etc. increasingly look like little more than shills for the EU political elite who are desperately clinging to their federalisation plans and need those bodies to tell other countries in the EU that the consequences of even considering an exit is dire.
- PaulRobinson 10y ago
  Of course you're right. There is bias. However this bias is informed by pronouncements from the EU themselves declaring they want £50 billion up-front for us leaving, and models that have been updated based on agreements we can see in action elsewhere (Norway, Sweden, WTO tariffs, etc.) So... yes, it might all be wrong. But if you aren't prepared to accept any model because in the past some models were a little off, well, how are we meant to make reasonable decisions about the future.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    You're still not saying where you got £60 billion per year from. If you're talking about the OBR figures, they're not a per year figure, but a one off cost. They also include something like £15 billion because of a drop in immigration. The OBR present growth figures include a built in "we're going to keep on ignoring our immigration targets" figure, and by removing that, "lost" that money. So it's basically two parts of government doing opposite things and then talking as if it's a "cost".

mattmanser 10y ago

Citation? Is the cost estimated by all the same people who said that a No vote would immediately tank the UK economy, even before the official Brexit? It grew instead. The problem with pronouncements like that is we've repeatedly seen economists and independent bodies be heavily politically biased in favour of the EU and seem to heavily exaggerate consequences and costs. As someone who is disappointed by our exit, I still want to see a reasonable assessment of our chances and frankly a lot of people like the IMF, etc. increasingly look like little more than shills for the EU political elite who are desperately clinging to their federalisation plans and need those bodies to tell other countries in the EU that the consequences of even considering an exit is dire.

PaulRobinson 10y ago
Of course you're right. There is bias. However this bias is informed by pronouncements from the EU themselves declaring they want £50 billion up-front for us leaving, and models that have been updated based on agreements we can see in action elsewhere (Norway, Sweden, WTO tariffs, etc.) So... yes, it might all be wrong. But if you aren't prepared to accept any model because in the past some models were a little off, well, how are we meant to make reasonable decisions about the future.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  You're still not saying where you got £60 billion per year from. If you're talking about the OBR figures, they're not a per year figure, but a one off cost. They also include something like £15 billion because of a drop in immigration. The OBR present growth figures include a built in "we're going to keep on ignoring our immigration targets" figure, and by removing that, "lost" that money. So it's basically two parts of government doing opposite things and then talking as if it's a "cost".