Opinion – Read Original National Audit Office Report – HM Treasury’s economic analysis in the lead-up to the referendum on European Union membership

Paul Krugman, Laureate of the Sveriges Riksban...

Paul Krugman, Laureate of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2008 at a press conference at the Swedish Academy of Science in Stockholm (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Londres - HM Treasury

Londres – HM Treasury (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you’re tired of the inherent bias in the UK’s mainstream media, read the NAO’s report into HM Treasury’s economic analysis in the lead-up to the referendum on European Union membership. This is important because the Brexit referendum was secured on basis of promoting fear of immigration, rampant xenophobia, and false news, rather than independent evidence and risk analysis.

Source: HM Treasury’s economic analysis in the lead-up to the referendum on European Union membership

Obviously, the terms of reference and political interpretation of the HMT results will demonstrate an element of bias. But the Treasury’s basic methodology was sound, its assumptions reasonable and clearly defined – in short, a professional piece of work. The NAO report highlights the HMT economic analysis compared to other independent studies. It’s perfectly reasonable for the projected results to vary based upon assumptions and modelling methodology.

What is important is the generalized conclusion, rather than the precise metric.

The world’s leading economists, including Nobel Prize Winning, Paul Krugman, have argued that the medium to long-term cataclysmic outlook following Brexit is water-tight. Depending upon the terms of the Brexit, leaving the EU will damage the UK economically for years into the future. Finance theory allows us to capitalize the impact of a future cashflow at the prevailing cost of capital and provide a one-time net present value, or simply a one-time cost of the decision. Last year, I did this calculation and it was eye-watering – it’s a shame that it was not highlighted by the UK’s outrageously biased media.

Secondly, there is the short-term economic impact following the Brexit decision. Here’s there is more room for doubt as a wider range of assumptions comes into play.

But what is clear is that the medium to long-term impact of Brexit will be tragic, disasterous, calamitous, dire and ruinous, penalizing future generations.

For deeper coverage, I recommend the following earlier blogs:

So what should be done to redress the catastrophic damage done by false news from deeply biased politicians and media, promoting self-interest ahead of national well-being?


Opinion – Pro-EU MPs could stage guerrilla campaign to reverse Brexit decision | Politics | The Guardian – John Gelmini

An HDR image of Parliament and Westminster Bridge

An HDR image of Parliament and Westminster Bridge (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I totally disagree with this Guardian article brought by Dr Alf. Parliament and MPs, thinking about “waging guerilla warfare against a Brexit decision or watering down the effect of a vote to leave the EU, are playing a very dangerous game.

As it is, politicians in this country and throughout the world are rightly held in contempt for “Only being in it for themselves”, representing the interests of plutocrats, tax avoiders like Vodaphone who have paid no Corporation Tax in the past 11 years, criminals, money launderers and unpleasant Wahibi regimes, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Kuwait.

People trying to earn a little on meagre savings find themselves at the wrong end of buy to let legislation at the same time as the Land Registry is to be sold off—A licence for drug barons and criminals to engage in what Dr Alf calls “financial irregularity” on an industrial scale and with impunity as no-one will know what land they actually own.

The decision for BREXIT or Remain, with the latter being the likely option, has to be respected but if the vote is close then legitimate concerns of the opposing side such as where to build extra houses and infrastructure, trade with the EU”passporting” rules for investment banks, concerns about future Eurozone bailouts,proposals to create a European army,lost trade etc have to be taken into account and dealt with properly.

If people are ignored completely, which is what the Guardian is suggesting, and what these MPs are suggesting then the consequences will be to bring the entire system into even greater contempt than it already is. That is going to mean more tax evasion, more criminality at a low level which the police cannot be bothered to deal with and a bloody minded attitude from the dispossessed and marginalised.

As it is, I question seriously why we need more than 200 MPs because a great many of them are pretty useless and not required, why too do we need a House of Lords when a slimmer senate would do? Also why do we need such an expensive Monarchy which holds £trillions GBP in land and monies overseas when it could be stripped of its powers and made to deliver value for money?

Certainly, if we do become part of a United States of Europe then the case for large Government and a Monarchy and layer upon layer of local authorities, overmanned constabularies,quangos and fire commands gets diminished rather than increased?

People need to be careful what they wish for,respect democracy and remember that guerilla warfare is a two-way street.

John Gelmini