Scrutable

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:09 am It certainly seems that both trust and goodwill will be in short supply, even if the desire for a deal is there.

I think you're likely to be overestimating how emotionally involved the negotiators will be.

The negotiators don't need to be, themselves.

Any deal also needs to be signed off by politicians from 27 other countries, which is where I suspect the optics and appearances and face-saving etc will be most important (on both sides, to be fair).

The people who actually stand for election in those countries will lon average want what is best for their voters' employment prospects, not what is best for Jean Monnet's project.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:38 pm The people who actually stand for election in those countries will lon average want what is best for their voters' employment prospects, not what is best for Jean Monnet's project.

I would regard this statement as nothing more than wishful thinking. People there are fundamentally no different to people here, or anywhere else in the world.

individualmember wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:12 am

sheldrake wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:38 pm The people who actually stand for election in those countries will lon average want what is best for their voters' employment prospects, not what is best for Jean Monnet's project.

I would regard this statement as nothing more than wishful thinking. People there are fundamentally no different to people here, or anywhere else in the world.

I agree, but politicians who have to stand for election tend to care what will be popular.

People routinely vote against their own employment prospects (to engage with sheldrake's example).

I don't think it's unlikely that at least 1 out of 27 EU governments during the next couple of years will have priorities that are slightly illogical and/or at odds with England's.

Looks like the Swiss are going to vote respoundingly to keep FoM in a binding referendum on this in May.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... nt-with-eu

A Tamedia online survey of about 11,000 people across the country found that 58% were against the idea [of ending FoM], 35% approved and 7% had no opinion. It had a two-point margin of error.

So, assuming the move to end FoM is voted down, the Swiss can get to keep their close relationship with the EU, and it strengthens the EU's hand in protecting the CU and SM from UK attempts to cherry pick benefits without conceding FoM.

Bloomberg report that Brexit has already cost the UK more that our net payments to the EU since we joined:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=true

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:13 pm Bloomberg report that Brexit has already cost the UK more that our net payments to the EU since we joined:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=true

Yeah, but something something sovereignty something.

P.J. Denyer wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:24 pm

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:13 pm Bloomberg report that Brexit has already cost the UK more that our net payments to the EU since we joined:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=true

Yeah, but something something sovereignty something.

And blue passports.

And we can have bendy bananas

CF

Cardinal Fang wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:27 pm And we can have bendy bananas

CF

According to one caller to LBC leaving the EU even means we can have 3 Pin Plugs!

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:13 pm Bloomberg report that Brexit has already cost the UK more that our net payments to the EU since we joined:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=true

More fantasy economics based on a cooked prediction of where the economy would be if we hadn't voted to leave.

"More economics based on a prediction of where the economy would be if we hadn't voted to leave" is an accurate summary. Inserting the words "fantasy" and "cooked" is not an intelligent counterargument. Try harder.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:07 am

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:13 pm Bloomberg report that Brexit has already cost the UK more that our net payments to the EU since we joined:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=true

More fantasy economics based on a cooked prediction of where the economy would be if we hadn't voted to leave.

The Bloomberg report acknowledges that it's based on a prediction of the economy growing at the rate it was in 2016 and comparing it to the rate at which it's actually performed. How else are you going to perform such an comparison? And do you have any evidence that the UK economy *wouldn't* have performed at that rate? Would have the UK economy have slowed down at the rate identified by Bloomberg without Brexit? If so, why?

Or would the UK economy have performed even better than simply maintaining it's growth rate? If so, Bloomberg is actually underestimating the cost of Brexit? (Remember, economic growth rates can go up as well as down.)

You can't rubbish a report for doing what it says on the tin.

What they're doing is baselining against a "historic" association between the UK and the other G7 economies. These are weasel words, and I don't think we get to see the raw numbers or assumptions. However it's pretty self evident that the uncertainty and lack of a plan has caused issues such as a nervousness to invest.

There is a strong historic correlation between the U.K. and G-7 countries. But they have been diverging since the vote to leave the EU, with the British economy now 3% smaller than it could have been had the relationship been maintained.

Dont you think thats a bit of a strong claim to make without actually checking the figures on UK inbound inveatment?

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:30 am Dont you think thats a bit of a strong claim to make without actually checking the figures on UK inbound inveatment?

So what are the figures UK inbound investment?

I'm not sure "inbound" investment would tell the whole story, especially as the weak pound and silly property market (esp for big-ticket properties) are both recent distortions. But I'm happy to be explained at.

Yes, there are some misleading metrics for inbound investment that include property purchases and the like, so it's important to look at the metric that shows productive investment such as new factories or an IT system. But I'll guess we'll wait to see what Sheldrake provides.

plodder wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:52 am I'm not sure "inbound" investment would tell the whole story, especially as the weak pound and silly property market (esp for big-ticket properties) are both recent distortions. But I'm happy to be explained at.

Not to mention the use of the silly end of the property market for money laundering/getting money out of repressive countries/whatever you want to call it.

I believe the component of Gross Fixed Capital Formation labelled 'Business Investment' excludes residential property and govt. spending

This is what the last two decades of data looks like, from the ONS



2018 was a bad year (barely visible on this time series) and then in early 2019 investment started to grow again.

If you want to know the effect of Brexit, you can't just look at whether your favorite statistic went down or up. You have to look at whether it went down or up differently from what it would have done in the absence of Brexit. The Bloomberg analysis attempted to do that. I have no idea whether it did a good job, but at least it made an attempt.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:11 pm I believe the component of Gross Fixed Capital Formation labelled 'Business Investment' excludes residential property and govt. spending

This is what the last two decades of data looks like, from the ONS



2018 was a bad year (barely visible on this time series) and then in early 2019 investment started to grow again.

Why is Gross Fixed Capital Formation your metric of choice? It sounds awfully technical so I’m sure there’s a good reason.

btw wiki says

GFCF is not a measure of total investment, because only the value of net additions to fixed assets is measured, and all kinds of financial assets are excluded, as well as stocks of inventories and other operating costs (the latter included in intermediate consumption). If, for example, one examines a company balance sheet, it is easy to see that fixed assets are only one component of the total annual capital outlay.

plodder wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:44 pm

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:11 pm I believe the component of Gross Fixed Capital Formation labelled 'Business Investment' excludes residential property and govt. spending

This is what the last two decades of data looks like, from the ONS



2018 was a bad year (barely visible on this time series) and then in early 2019 investment started to grow again.

Why is Gross Fixed Capital Formation your metric of choice? It sounds awfully technical so I’m sure there’s a good reason.

btw wiki says

GFCF is not a measure of total investment, because only the value of net additions to fixed assets is measured, and all kinds of financial assets are excluded, as well as stocks of inventories and other operating costs (the latter included in intermediate consumption). If, for example, one examines a company balance sheet, it is easy to see that fixed assets are only one component of the total annual capital outlay.

There's no trickery going on. That's the result of a simple search for uk business investment time series. I wanted something that excluded residential property and govt. spending because anything that had those folded in would be more questionable from your perspective. If you don't think this is a good metric, let me know what you find iffy about it.