Merged Now What?

[ddt]

Then again shouldn't we take this seriously ? After all he's in charge of negotiating Brexit and for him keeping Johnny (and Jane) Foreigner out is more important than the health of the UK economy.

If he wants to keep Johnny Foreigner out, it's only honest for him to say that it's unlikely the UK stays in the single market.

But further to that: is it to him important to keep any Johnny Foreigner out, or is it important to him rather to keep Janusz Foreigner out and not so much Johann Foreigner?

 

[CapelDodger]

Then again shouldn't we take this seriously ? After all he's in charge of negotiating Brexit and for him keeping Johnny (and Jane) Foreigner out is more important than the health of the UK economy.

But David Davis is not in charge of negotiating Brexit. Theresa May is in charge. Davis is in charge of the department for negotiating Brexit. In concert with the Foreign Office and whatever it is Liam Fox runs, I'm past caring, frankly.

This whole farce is going to be 90% demarcation dispute and 10% abject panic, mark my words.

 

[The Don]

Davis had 300 people to recruit to create his nice shiny new department. He was far too busy to do any actual policy making, or talking to other members of the cabinet about what they should be doing.

As I'm sure I've mentioned. Private Eye a couple of editions ago in one of their "Number Crunching" boxes pointed out that 30 (or was it 300 - damn my old memory) people had been recruited into the department with the word "Director" in their job title, but no actual negotiators.

It will be interesting to fin out by how much the ongoing administrative costs of being out of the EU exceed the costs of being in - which were apparently intolerably high

 

[The Don]

This whole farce is going to be 90% demarcation dispute and 10% abject panic, mark my words.

It's all so frikking irresponsible unless the whole idea is that the "children" tire themselves out squabbling in the sand pit and then "Nursie" comes along and tidies everything up...

 

[GlennB]

An interesting (near) parallel is developing in Switzerland, it seems. The Swiss voted in a referendum to restrict free movement of EU citizens into Switzerland, but the EU reckoned they couldn't have that and free access to the single market.

It seems the Swiss are going for a bodge, by merely 'giving preference' to Swiss when hiring. Final judgement is yet to be passed.

linky

 

[CapelDodger]

Yeah. It's just that I was kidding myself they might use the 6-week summer recess to decide what policy might actually be. Perhaps they were dotted around the world on holiday on sun-kissed islands?

They were intriguing against each other, to all accounts, and to all expectations, really.

It's no coincidence, of course, that May was unable to attend Davis's first "progress report", being halfway round the world at the time. Otherwise she'd have been there to demonstrate that he has her utmost confidence, I'm sure.

 

[Tolls]

As I'm sure I've mentioned. Private Eye a couple of editions ago in one of their "Number Crunching" boxes pointed out that 30 (or was it 300 - damn my old memory) people had been recruited into the department with the word "Director" in their job title, but no actual negotiators.

I go through phases with Private Eye. Read it for a couple of years then stop for a couple. I think I really ought to take it up again...

It will be interesting to fin out by how much the ongoing administrative costs of being out of the EU exceed the costs of being in - which were apparently intolerably high

Except we're not out yet, so all this cost (and for the next few years) is in addition to the apparently intolerable cost of being in the EU.

Trebles all round!

 

[CapelDodger]

It's all so frikking irresponsible unless the whole idea is that the "children" tire themselves out squabbling in the sand pit and then "Nursie" comes along and tidies everything up...

It is shocking.

Time for Parliament to step up. Seriously. This is not silly season stuff : the world is in seven sorts of crisis, the country is metabolising its own muscle-tissue to keep functioning, and we're slopping around in this crap.

It cannot go on.

But it will ...

 

[CapelDodger]

I go through phases with Private Eye. Read it for a couple of years then stop for a couple. I think I really ought to take it up again...

I know just what you mean.

Except we're not out yet, so all this cost (and for the next few years) is in addition to the apparently intolerable cost of being in the EU.

Trebles all round!

I will take it up again.

 

[GlennB]

I go through phases with Private Eye. Read it for a couple of years then stop for a couple. I think I really ought to take it up again...

Me too. But after a half-year subscription I get so depressed at the level of corruption and incompetence is reveals that I need a break.

Trebles all round!

I'll drink to that! Oh, wait ... I already have. Cheers!

 

[ddt]

An interesting (near) parallel is developing in Switzerland, it seems. The Swiss voted in a referendum to restrict free movement of EU citizens into Switzerland, but the EU reckoned they couldn't have that and free access to the single market.

It seems the Swiss are going for a bodge, by merely 'giving preference' to Swiss when hiring. Final judgement is yet to be passed.

linky

Or they're going for a second referendum. In Switzerland, when a civic initiative collects something like 200,000 signatures, they have to organize a referendum, and a simple majority changes the (written) constitution. I don't think there's anything in there that prohibits holding a second referendum cancelling the first. And as you can see, the EU has already put Switzerland on sanctions, they have been ejected from Horizon2020 and from Erasmus.

It's going to be interesting how this plays out. May and Davis and Bojo must be looking carefully at that to see how hardball the EU plays it.

ETA: the Swiss referendum was in February 2014, and the Swiss-EU treaties have a 3-year renegotiation window, so the outcome should be clear by February 2017.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I've been too busy to come back to this thread, so apologies for the comment resurrection.

Well if you are comparing predictions please lets see the predictions you are comparing first before we assess anything.

Carney's comments were extremely well covered in the news; if you're not aware of them how closely were you actually following the EU referendum debates? For example (link here). Quote from linked article:

If rates were cut, Mr Carney added that homeowners should not expect their mortgages to also fall because there would be an increased “risk premium” on those rates as British banks had to pay more to fund themselves.

As noted, my mortgage has already fallen. Anecdotal, but my understanding is that this is not unique. Other friends have reported similarly. Harder data should become available over the next month or two.

Are you arguing that we should ignore the best economic forecasts we have when making decisions? If not then your hindsight is worthless. And if so... well its equally worthless.

No, I'm saying we should ignore blatant scaremongering, whether it is the crazy man at the end of the road saying the end of the world is nigh and Mark Carney claiming mortgages would go up.

Also, economic predictions should account for the limit of predictability (defined as the ability of a model to outperform a naive baseline - well understood amongst those who study econometrics). For macroeconomic predictions, that is no more than 3-6 months. Beyond that, economics models are worthless. You may as well believe tea leaves.

If not then what exactly are you arguing? Theres no logic at all.

My logic is based on a solid understanding of the limits of predictability of complex systems, which I'm not sure you're familiar with, but is a well understood and researched topic of mathematics and science.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Your conclusion seems at odds with your belief that economies are chaotic non-linear systems and inherently unpredictable - or is that only true in regard to predictions you don't like the sound of?

Oh CapelDodger. All these years and you still don't understand the concept of a horizon of predictability.

Complex systems that exhibit exponential error growth from initial conditions still have a short period of predictability. So yes, we could predict that there would be a short term impact from the EU referendum; the swings in the stock markets and the pound can indeed be linked to events such as the deficit and the EU referendum because they happen on a short timescale.

Long timescale predictions of such systems, on the other hand, are completely pointless.

Of course, the definition of long and short is highly dependent on the system at hand, and I've already noted the horizon of predictability for economies as around 3-6 months.

My position is entirely consistent with this and has been consistent all along.

Devaluation and quantitative easing will lead to inflation, which will in turn lead to increased interest rates. There really is no doubt about that.

Or a booming economy could lead to increased interest rates. Or some other event could lead to increased interest rates.

Claiming that at some point in the future interest rates will go up is about as useful as pointing out the sun will rise in the morning. We have historically low interest rates. Of course, at some point, they will go up. And then eventually down again. That's what they do.

The question is what happens in the short term, within the window of predictability. And the answer seems to be: not what Mark Carney told us would happen. Oops.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Oh CapelDodger. All these years and you still don't understand the concept of a horizon of predictability.

Complex systems that exhibit exponential error growth from initial conditions still have a short period of predictability. So yes, we could predict that there would be a short term impact from the EU referendum; the swings in the stock markets and the pound can indeed be linked to events such as the deficit and the EU referendum because they happen on a short timescale.

Long timescale predictions of such systems, on the other hand, are completely pointless.

Of course, the definition of long and short is highly dependent on the system at hand, and I've already noted the horizon of predictability for economies as around 3-6 months.

My position is entirely consistent with this and has been consistent all along.


Or a booming economy could lead to increased interest rates. Or some other event could lead to increased interest rates.

Claiming that at some point in the future interest rates will go up is about as useful as pointing out the sun will rise in the morning. We have historically low interest rates. Of course, at some point, they will go up. And then eventually down again. That's what they do.

The question is what happens in the short term, within the window of predictability. And the answer seems to be: not what Mark Carney told us would happen. Oops.

Did you find those quotes of what Carney predicted and when?

You didn't really answer my question previously as to what your argument actually is.

Do you agree that some things are likely to occur as the result of actions taken? You seem to but I'd like to clarify.

If you do then do you also agree that those things that happen can and will have effects that last longer than 6 months? And that if the effects are predictable and last longer than 6 months it's possible to make sensible statements about effects beyond 6 months?

Yes something else might happen to the economy to make things worse or better but that doesn't mean the original effect isn't there.

If you really think economic predictions are pointless beyond 6 months then you are basically arguing that we should ignore any economic argument for any decision ever.

 

[catsmate]

More flatulence, this time from David Davis

It's increasing;y obvious to me that he's being set up to fail.

Determined and confident. Practically a done deal, then.

Except if those pesky Europeans don't cooperate...

The only certainty is that Parliament is not going to be allowed to mess up the deal - the best deal - that Davis is going to win us.

Oh dearie me.

Wtf are they doing?

Drinking, padding expenses, pissing contests with the other Brexit departments... You know, the usual.

A challenge that Davis is utterly incapable of comprehending, let alone coping with.

True.

 

[catsmate]

The CTist in me sees the 2020 GE as 'a good one to lose' and the rise of Corbyn as a carefully orchestrated strategy by Labout eminences grises to come to the rescue with their real candidate.

The realist, however, tells me that they aren't that clever and we're all doomed to an eternal succession of utter wankers.

If only there was a shadowy cabal running things...

 

[catsmate]

Why ? The EU has nothing to do with our direct exports to the USA, Canada, Australia etc.

Then we shouldn't sign a trade deal with China, simple.

No, it really isn't.

 

[catsmate]

It makes total sense, relocate to Ireland or another EU country with excellent English if you're a services company.

Are you checking your family tree for an Irish grandparent?

 

[catsmate]

A post-Brexit solution which keeps us out of the EU but with the free movement of labour will be opposed by all those who voted Remain (because we lose EU membership and gain little or nothing in return) and the majority of those who voted Leave (because it doesn't address the issue of the "hoardes" or "swarms" of refugees).

I'm pretty sure after the last debacle they won't be given a (direct) vote on the matter.

BTW, it appears that the migration data used by UKGov (based on the IPS data) may be wildly wrong; subtract a moderately sized horde.

 

[Airfix]

It has already come out that Cameron and Osborne were asking people like the German Finance Minister Walter Schauble had scaremongered because George Osborne had asked him to in order to strengthen the remain camp.

The IMF's Christine LaGarde is a facing trial for negligence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36868195

And the emergency budget that George Osborne threatened to implement never happened, instead George Osborne is gone.

We all knew there'd be a bit of uncertainty, and the pound had been overvalued for a long time, so it's no surprise that the pound is weaker.

But the doomsday level of scaremongering from David Cameron and George Osborne never happened and will not happen. They treated the public like idiots and rightly faced the backlash.