The tl/dr version of his post is that people who didn't like Brexit were big fat liars because they had predicted the end of the world would commence the day after the referendum and when this didn't happen (because in the strange world Staines inhabits, the pound hasn't relentlessly tanked) and now the Remoaner fibbers are trying to say that they never actually said that at all and the End of the World would kick off after Britain actually left the EU blah blah blah, and this was all lies, lies I tell you!
He produces DEVASTATING documentary evidence to back up his claim - a report issued by HM Treasury, no less, assuring us Brexit apocalypse would be 'immediate' and he quotes some absolutely DEVASTATING evidence to PROVE beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that ALL REMAINERS are lying deviants who molest hedgehogs. To whit:
This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow. Such a vote would change fundamentally not just the UK’s relationship with the EU, our largest trading partner, but also our relationship with the rest of the world. The instability and uncertainty that would trigger is assessed.
The Treasury analysis in this document uses a widely-accepted modelling approach that looks at the impact of this uncertainty and instability on financial markets, households and businesses, as our economy transitions to a worse trading arrangement with the EU.
I am grateful to Professor Sir Charles Bean, one of our country's foremost economists and a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, who has reviewed this analysis and says that it “provides reasonable estimates of the likely size of the short-term impact of a vote to leave on the UK economy”.
The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.He even draws red oval shapes around some bits of it, a skill I have yet to evolve. But, I mean, why would you need red oval shapes when the evidence is so DEVASTATINGLY PROOFY as that? The Remainers predicted the End Of Times would be IMMEDIATE after a VOTE FOR LEAVE and - well, the GDP figures released the other day show growth of 0.5%. GROWTH.
Only, yeah, Paul Staines is a big fat Tory FIBBER so it will come as no surprise at all to learn that this is just a big ol' FIB.
I mean, he didn't invent it or anything, the paper exists. Though, curiously, Mr Staines doesn't link it on his bloggy-woggy or anything, because that might result in some people stumbling across the truth or something and Ol' Stainy doesn't want THAT.
Unlike Stainsey, I'm happy to linky.
Because here's the thing. The paper he is quoting is a legit paper released by Her Madge's Gummint and everything. But the bit he's quoting is a bit written by the former Chief Idiot To The Treasury, Mr Gideon "Call Me George" Osborne himself, a man whose occupancy of the office of Chancellor was somewhat akin to a stalker's relationship to romance - he isn't wanted, he doesn't get it, but he won't go away.
So enough of George, because it isn't nice to kick a man while he's down (a lesson that the Tories never learned) and back to Paul Staines.
Like I said, Mr Staines makes a bi deal of the words 'vote to leave' which are prefaced by immediate and OHMIGOD it looks soooooooooo bad, until you actually look at the original report. The bit written by the experts who knew what they were talking about, I mean, not the bit written by the Gidiot in Number 11. Because then you discover that - unfortunately for Stainsey - when grown up economist people (as distinct from moron bloggers) use words like IMMEDIATE they don't mean RIGHT NOW.
If Staines had bothered to read a bit beyond the foreword written by Gideon Osborne he'd have found this out for himself.
'coz if he'd read only as far as PARAGRAPH FRIGGIN' FOUR of the Executive Summary (and who really reads beyond the Executive Summary?) the Stainsinator would have learned that when those clever economicky type people use words like IMMEDIATE they have a bit of a special meaning that is lost on both him and on Gideon:
The analysis in this HM Treasury document quantifies the impact of that adjustment over the immediate period of two years following a vote to leave. Such a vote would trigger a redefinition not only of the UK’s economic relationship with the EU and the rest of the world, but also of much of the UK’s domestic economic policy, regulatory and legislative framework. A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow."The immediate period of two years," GEDDIT??
So, yeah, what do you make of that, Staines, you big fat Tory FIBBER?
Of course, its not Paul's fault that George Osborne was almost as useless a writer of forewords as he was a Chancellor. But the evidence was all there in black and white and all he had to do was read it and be honest. He massively failed on one of these counts. Because if you look beyond the Wise Words of Gideon's foreword, you'd have to be pretty damn thick not to realise that when the EXPERTS (as distinct from idiot bloggers) used the term immediate they meant a two year time scale.
They even have a section called, "Part 3: Modelling the immediate impact on the public finances of a vote to leave the EU," (page 74) which is examining the impacts through to 2018. Which is two years away. 'Immediate' appears to cover the period from the vote up until exiting, working on the assumption that Cameron stuck to his word and triggered Article 50 pretty much immediately after a referendum.
Which possibley suggests a worrying lack of scientific rigour on the part of the authors, because, you know, Tories and their word ...
But, anyhoo, either oor man Stainsey did not bother to read the report before ranting his branes on the interwebs; or he is a klutz who did not understand what he read; or he is a Big Fat Tory FIBBER who understood it and decided to misrepresent it to the readers of his blog, because, you know, the truth isn't much good if it doesn't advance the Tories.
Which was it, Paul?