Reply to: EU dissent gathers pace

[northernladyuk]

And that's how folks alternative facts are born...

We need an emoji or icon or whatever they are called.

[AtW]

At last, a common sense indisputable fact about the EU, and from AtW of all people!

And that's how folks alternative facts are born...

[northernladyuk]

Nemo iudex in causa sua

You cast a wild allegation, and I offered a rebuttal, but you have nothing to say on that it seems.


However, not to worry because: it's going to be a jolly red, white and blue Brexit, all washed down with lashings of ginger beer!

[OwlHoot]

For the record: The Economist was cautious about Britain joining the euro | The Economist

Nemo iudex in causa sua

[OwlHoot]

The Economist is terrible publication full of EU funded lies.

At last, a common sense indisputable fact about the EU, and from AtW of all people!

[northernladyuk]

Unfortunately it's for ages 10+.

[PurpleGorilla]

Those who play chess well know how to forecast next few moves.

What does HMG playing, polo or croquet?

[NigelJK]

Those who play chess well know how to forecast next few moves.

Unfortunately us playing by the rules is what got us into so much difficulty with the EU. The other Nations just ignore them.

[AtW]

Bear in mind that the Economist is a fanatically pro-EU rag, and all their past EU-related predictions and urgings have been hopelessly and hilariously wrong (e.g. We MUST join ERM, we MUST join the Euro, etc etc ...)

The Economist is terrible publication full of EU funded lies, so much unlike Daily Mail, which is the golden standard of Truth

[northernladyuk]

Bear in mind that the Economist is a fanatically pro-EU rag, and all their past EU-related predictions and urgings have been hopelessly and hilariously wrong (e.g. We MUST join ERM, we MUST join the Euro, etc etc ...)

Excellent work.

For the record: The Economist was cautious about Britain joining the euro | The Economist

For the record
The Economist was cautious about Britain joining the euro
May 25th 2016, 10:14 BY C.W. | LONDON
Timekeeper

I WAS asked yesterday in a radio interview about the Treasury's report, published on Monday, which predicted a sharp recession if Britain votes to leave the EU. My opponent in that debate dismissed my view on the grounds that The Economist had advocated Britain joining the euro back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Of course this sort of argument is a red herring (if you're wrong about one thing does it definitely mean that you're wrong about something else?), but it's worth pointing out for the record that we were sceptical about the prospect of Britain joining.

First we have long been sceptical about the idea of the euro for any country. In a special report in 1998 we argued that "the European economics are ill-preared for the euro" and that "Europe does not make an ideal currency area". Our hope back then was that, with a single currency, economies like Italy, Spain and the rest would be forced to implement structural reforms that made their economies more competitive. (Of course this did not happen to the extent that it was required.)

Then, on Britain, we did do a survey of 164 economists in 1999 which found that two-thirds were in favour of joining. However, we consistently expressed scepticism about the wisdom of the project. For instance, we worried in 2002 about the impact on Britain's economy of the "stability pact", which "if Britain were to join the euro, say in 2004...would become highly relevant." The stability pact puts limits on the size of budget deficits. But we remarked in that article that "Britain's public infrastructure is exceptionally run-down" and while a policy of reducing public debt "may be legitimate for the EU as a whole" it would not be for Britain.

Advertisement


In a 2003 article, we did say that the "economic benefits of Britain's adopting the euro would most likely outweigh the economic drawbacks". But, this was only on the condition that the "inept Stability and Growth Pact should be improved, preferably to the point where it ceases to exist."

So the idea that The Economist has been slavishly pro-euro from the off is just not true.

[OwlHoot]

And is the WTO option a walk in the park?

The Economist explains: Why the “WTO option” for Brexit will prove tricky | The Economist

Bear in mind that the Economist is a fanatically pro-EU rag, and all their past EU-related predictions and urgings have been hopelessly and hilariously wrong (e.g. We MUST join ERM, we MUST join the Euro, etc etc ...)

[AtW]

You are such a pessimist.

Those who play chess well know how to forecast next few moves.

What does HMG playing, polo or croquet?

[PurpleGorilla]

What he means is that U-boats won't be enforcing trade blockage...

Trade will continue, but with higher transaction costs, so essentials will be imported, and low margin exports will drop dead.

You are such a pessimist.

[AtW]

Brexit unlikely to disrupt UK trade, says WTO boss

"The UK will not face a trade "vacuum or disruption" no matter how tough its exit from the European Union turns out to be, according Roberto Azevedo, director-general of the World Trade Organization (WTO)"

What he means is that U-boats won't be enforcing trade blockage...

Trade will continue, but with higher transaction costs, so essentials will be imported, and low margin exports will drop dead.

[PurpleGorilla]

And is the WTO option a walk in the park?



The Economist explains: Why the “WTO option” for Brexit will prove tricky | The Economist

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brexit-unli...eneral-1588422

"The UK will not face a trade "vacuum or disruption" no matter how tough its exit from the European Union turns out to be, according Roberto Azevedo, director-general of the World Trade Organization (WTO)"