Well to me you seem to infer that the most likely outcome for the UK post Brexit would be an economic catastrophe. After all, in Russian roulette there is typically at least a 1 in 6 chance of suffering a truly catastrophic outcome. So on what do you base such a prediction for the UK economy post Brexit? Financial analysts etc are divided. Personally I havent seen anything to reasonably suggest that for the UK leaving the EU would be in any way a form of Russian roulette.
I don't really know what the "most likely outcome for the UK post Brexit" would be. The situation has changed constantly over the last couple years. That being said, there are certain things about the diplomatic situation that we must first agree upon for this discussion to go anywhere.
It can be said as fact that the UK is gambling its short term economic gains on the assumption that it can get better trade deals as an independent country rather than as part of the EU. True or False?
There is a chance that this gamble can fail and either result in no economic change or economic damage. True or False?
This chance is increased if the Governmental bodies in charge do not adequately address and prepare for possible pitfalls along the way and make preparations for a variety of scenarios. True or False?
This chance is further increased if the populace is not adequately prepared for any potential shocks to the economy as part of Brexit. True or False?
The type of Brexit had will economically affect the country either positively or negatively. True or False?
Again, you seem to be inferring that there is a high likelihood that the UK economy will be significantly worse off post Brexit. Based on what? The BoE predicted a doomsday scenario for the economy immediately after a successful Brexit vote...only this never happened. Again, on what do you base your assertion that the UK economy will most likely be significantly worse off post Brexit? You also state that losing is more likely if there is no strategy or planning. Now i certainly don't disagree with that but why do you believe there is no strategy? No plan?
Why do YOU believe there is one? I hear nothing but 'the experts have no idea what they're doing' and 'May is an incompetent moron'. There is constant infighting in Parliament as the Tories fight among themselves while May seems content to piss away her time asking for things from the EU that were clearly never going to be agreed to.
I have asked multiple people who supports Brexit on TFS, "What is the plan for Brexit" and none of them have been able to give me a plan. Was the plan for May to propose a plan that would be soundly beaten in Parliament to such a degree that it made her look ineffectual? Was the plan for the UK to crash out of the EU thereby tearing up the Good Friday Agreement and saying to the world "We just tore up a treaty in order to rid ourselves of the EU, so would you like to sign this treaty with us that we promise we won't tear up with all our hearts"? Cause that seems to be the way this is going now.
If these actions were planned, I'd hate to see how a dysfunctional Brexit would look like.
So are you saying that all trade negotiations are like walking into a lions den or do you think this would only apply to the UK post Brexit? If so why? And in what way is Brexit inherently dangerous? Let's face it, just about every activity humans engage in could be argued as being inherently dangerous.
Ordinarily, smaller economies band together so that they can engage in negotiations with the big boys at the table. If your goal is to have the UK trade with smaller countries in Africa and Island Nations, then perhaps you have the dominant position. I doubt that the UK has the economic clout to conduct trade negotiations on equal footing with larger trading blocs, though. Even assuming that your economy stabilizes after Brexit, there's probably no way that you can engage in negotiations on equal footing with the US, EU, or China.
This is what I mean when I say that Brexit is dangerous. While it is true that all negotiations carry an inherent sense of danger, the difference in the negotiating positions does matter. The US and the EU can conduct negotiations relatively evenly, but I doubt the UK and the US can do the same. While it is true that the Uk can freely walk away from negotiations, there are only so many economies in the world, and walk away from enough of them and it will start to seriously hamper your economy.
Ignoring the references to a lion's den what you say is true of any trade negotiation, in that the right tools, knowledge and planning can lead to an advantageous outcome.
Nothing is determined, but I have yet to see the UK show any of the tools, knowledge, or planning required to pull this off.
Again, what is this prediction based on?
The UK is not an economic superpower and wishes to negotiate with economic giants. I honestly don't see how this can't get ugly. This is however, a prediction based on past data. The UK economy could quickly balloon to match the US or China to create an equal footing. Anything's possible after all.
Firstly it is unnecessarily emotive, as are comparisons to Russian roulette and walking into a lion's den. Anyway, you are the one saying that Brexit is dangerous in the short term. I am curious as to what you base that assertion on.
I could have left it out but then I would just be saying the exact same things I did the last 3 times we had this conversation. I thought an analogy would help.
Hardly. Unlike some people I don't claim to be able to predict the future. So I don't know exactly what the economic impact on the UK's economy will be. That said I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that the impact would be significant one way or the other. However, many pro EU supporters before the Brexit vote were adamant that economic Armageddon awaited the UK the moment a Brexit vote succeeded. Only that didn't happen and hasn't happened. The simple reality is that no one can possibly know what impact leaving the EU will have on the UK economy until AFTER the fact. Surely that is just common sense. Unless you are claiming to be able to KNOW what the future holds.
Predictions are based upon assumptions. Remove one of those assumptions and the whole thing falls apart. For instance I seem to remember that the BoE report that predicted the doom of the UK was based on the assumption that article 50 would be invoked immediately after the vote.
As for significance, it's still too early to definitively tell, I agree. That argument runs both ways though. To say it's still too early to tell but also argue that the impact will probably be not that much either relies on assumptions just like my own predictions. At which point we argue over whether the assumptions are true or likely.