Both those sources can be discarded out of hand. No economic body has ever successfully predicted the status of a nation more than a few months in advance; 15 years is laughable.
Still waiting for any evidence that it will turn out better.
Anything. Just one report that points to something that will give us a long term prosperity. Something that will course the economy to be lower that if we stayed.
If everyone is saying it will be a lower GDP, why do you think different? I'd rather not base the future of our country on blind hope.
Because its not just about losing trade deals (of which we currently have many in the EU), or free trade with the EU (which account for 40% of our exports). See quote below for a hint:
"
Although she concedes that exporters to the EU will have to obey EU rules, the more Mrs May insists on controlling EU migration and escaping the ECJ, the less barrier-free will be Britain’s overall access to the single market. This is not just because free movement of people is a condition for the EU, nor because it will be hard to secure tariff-free access for trade in goods, something both sides can readily agree on. It is because the biggest obstacles swept away by the single market are not tariffs or customs checks, but non-tariff barriers such as standards, regulations and state-aid rules. Unless Britain accepts these, which implies a role for the system’s referee, the ECJ, it cannot operate freely in the single market—as even American firms trading in the EU have found."
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-offs-ahead-britains-brutal-encounter-reality
So you may enjoy some rule relaxed if you don't export (although you probably won't won't as we are taking all EU law anyway), but if we lose as much trade as has been projected, you might be out of a job anyway. Remember, I have shown multiple sources showing forecasts saying that we will be worse off. I'm open to anything that counters that, but right now, even devaluing the pound won't solve our problems. We need a long term solution, and the best (although not easiest politically) would be to stay.
I like my job. I like my city, I like my country. I want them all to do well. But Hull is more vulnerable than most cities (large manufacturing base), and the North in general is vulnerable.
But lets also mention the cost. As well the list I've posted of Brexit costs, lets also add £500million for a new colour passport. [sarcasm]Yes, because that's so worth it.[sarcasm/]
So soveriegnty wasn't an issue after all, although we seem to have lost it to an extent.
We will be a rule taker rather than a rule maker (as I have already show).
We'll spend well over £60billion doing it (see list earlier)
Our economy will suffer, with no evidence that we'll find any new trade that will adequately replace what we lose.
Science sector will suffer. (Job losses have already started.)
We'll have more civil servants &red tape.
Financial services (our biggest earner) will suffer, and the Governent doesn't even consider it a high priority!. Banks have already started to move out, and I know of at least one firm that will go to the wall.
And Gibralter,N.Ireland, and Scotland suddenly become major issues again when we thought they were sorted.
Remind me again what rules you wanted changing to make this all worthwhile beyond some nebulous feelings of pride?