Lost for Words wrote:

Votes aren't devisive; the issues behind them are. That's not a reason to not have votes, or why one view is better than another.

Lost for Words wrote:

Pelyma wrote:

Economics is not a science, they can make forecasts and predictions, but they are just that. A+B doesn’t always make C.

The trick is to know the difference between what is economics, and what is econometrics. The detailed, maths-based economic forecasting is the latter, and is increasingly regarded with scepticism. The former contains many useful and sound principles that are based in science and logic, but they are easily abused as they are often counterintuitive and little understood. It's also key to know what assumptions are being made.

The problem is always how the scientific bits are used and portrayed; there are few sounder principles in economics than the understanding of trade, on which the vast, vast, vast majority of economists agree but how one applies it matters greatly. The core implication of trade theory is that free trade is mutually and unilaterally beneficial. Barriers inflict harm, first and foremost, on the country that imposes them.

Therefore, all one has to do to create a report criticising Brexit is to assume that Britian will apply tariff and non-tariff barriers when we leave - often at the maximum WTO level. You can then apply complete scientific rigour to the report and come up with the biased result you so desire.

The fallacy is to equivocate leaving the EU with protectionism - the two are different things. We don't ahve to do that. Flip the political assumption and you get the opposite result from the same analysis. At the heart of it lies a political question, not an economic one.

The other thing is to weight heavily on a gravity-based model of trade. That is, the closer countries are, the more they will trade. It was once quite accurate, but with transportation costs falling, distance matters less and less, so it's no longer an accurate proxy for the transactions costs. It also ignores commonality in lanuage, culture, law and business practices that will lead to increased trade between those countries.

Most of the reports are economically quite sound - they just aren't measuring based on a neutral interpretation of Brexit. What the reports really say is that we shouldn't be protectionist after Brexit; not that we shouldn't have Brexit - something Brexiteers and Remainers alike should be able to agree on.

Riccardo wrote:

I am not saying that the vote was wrong in itself I think the way it was presented and the choices have created the mess

Canburne wrote:

Trouble is I think the 'mess' is in more in your mind than in reality. It was never going to be easy as the whole process is enormously complicated but we keep getting project fear thrown about. The truth is we are now committed so lets all try together and make it the best possible outcome.

Canburne wrote:

Must have been on the bus then.....

Exactly right and maybe for certain things you are still there

Ouch those remainers will never stop

Quote:

The first Brexit comic, with characters including the Reverend May and her Brexit Gang, David Dealin’ Davis and Boris “Captain Brexit” Johnson, will go into circulation next month, loosely based on the classic 1960s children’s TV programme Trumpton.The project is the idea of illustrator and author Mike Dicks, who raised £4,400 via crowdfunding to pay for the first edition, which will be posted to donors and supporters by 1 April.

“The Brexit comic is about giving everyone a laugh. Better than crying about it,” says Dicks, who admits he is a Remainer. “I suppose it’s countercultural to go from online to print, but I was a huge fan of the Beano and like the idea of a physical comic every month.”