BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

And you have the head of the BoE, independent from the Treasury (who irritate him a lot with their lack of fiscal direction), saying that he believes the Treasury research was the product of a “sound economic process” and the Brexit analysis “makes broad sense”.

rick_chasey

Basically you have multiple independent analysis corroborating with one another, across the civil services (who by law must remain neutral ) and across mainstream economics (who have little vested interest in not being neutral), including previous economists who argued against further EU integration l, and your response is just "nah, don't believe em, too much vested interest"??

That's just denial.

Even Brexiters say there will be a cost to this. They feel it's a price worth paying!

Bobbinogs

I don't think there is anything joined up in the numbers being produced apart from saying "This will cost you". No side (Out or In) is playing the same numbers with the same models with all the factors leveled up. My point is more about this election is panning out to be exactly the way most of us suspected in that it will come down to folks voting in or our based on personal preference.

rick_chasey

All the objective models say a Brexit is very costly.

That's a fact.

Stevo_666

(Trying to be objective here).

Link below to one organisation that at least claims to be neutral. Results are a range of outcomes depending on future actions which include both positive and negative scenarios:

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

bobmcstuff

Gove's finally come out and said what a post-Brexit world might look like. Apparently we're to join Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine in a free trade zone - no offence to any nationals of those countries but I'm not sure that's an easy message to sell

Agree with Rick that most economists seem to agree that Britain will be worse off from a Brexit, at least in the short term. I think (still) that most Leavers are in that camp for other reasons, as Bobbinogs says.

norvernrob

bobmcstuff wrote:

Gove's finally come out and said what a post-Brexit world might look like. Apparently we're to join Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine in a free trade zone - no offence to any nationals of those countries but I'm not sure that's an easy message to sell

Agree with Rick that most economists seem to agree that Britain will be worse off from a Brexit, at least in the short term. I think (still) that most Leavers are in that camp for other reasons, as Bobbinogs says.

Albania and Serbia are recognised candidates to join the EU, along with Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey. So stay in the EU and they're likely to join us anyway.

rick_chasey

Not if UK doesn't want them to. See the Netherlands & Ukraine.

Lookyhere

Rick Chasey wrote:

And you have the head of the BoE, independent from the Treasury (who irritate him a lot with their lack of fiscal direction), saying that he believes the Treasury research was the product of a “sound economic process” and the Brexit analysis “makes broad sense”.

if these risks of Brexit are real and represent a economic disaster for the UK, why did the government promise a referendum in the first place?
what if people vote out, based on their views on immigration ? or many IN supporters dont bother voting?

the government should be doing what they believe is best for the UK (thats what they are voted in for) not having referendums based on short term electoral gain.

bobmcstuff

Lookyhere wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And you have the head of the BoE, independent from the Treasury (who irritate him a lot with their lack of fiscal direction), saying that he believes the Treasury research was the product of a “sound economic process” and the Brexit analysis “makes broad sense”.

if these risks of Brexit are real and represent a economic disaster for the UK, why did the government promise a referendum in the first place?
what if people vote out, based on their views on immigration ? or many IN supporters dont bother voting?

the government should be doing what they believe is best for the UK (thats what they are voted in for) not having referendums based on short term electoral gain.

They were elected with a mandate to have a referendum. There is a sizeable proportion of conservative MPs (and some labour to be fair) who are dogmatically opposed to the EU.

As discussed extensively above most outers don't seem to be basing it primarily on economic reasons. Factors like immigration and loss of sovereignty (perceived or otherwise) seem to be higher up their lists.

Even most leave camp admit there will be at least some short term disruption. And I think given the speed negotiations move in real life (as compared to their idealised timelines) it's going to be at least medium term.

bobmcstuff

Also if you're relying on MP's better judgement to protect us from risks like that I think you're onto a loser.

Only reason Cameron has let it happen is to keep his discontents happy (although just like letting the SNP have a referendum he's going to find it doesn't work).

ballysmate

bobmcstuff wrote:

Also if you're relying on MP's better judgement to protect us from risks like that I think you're onto a loser.

Only reason Cameron has let it happen is to keep his discontents happy (although just like letting the SNP have a referendum he's going to find it doesn't work).

I refer the Hon Member to my earlier answer.

EU membership was a boil that would need to be lanced at some point, regardless of whether the Tories won the election. Cameron promised a referendum in the manifesto which I agree may have persuaded some Eurosceptics to vote Tory. But don't forget or dismiss the 4m who still voted UKIP, a one trick pony. That is 1 in 8 of the electorate and more than the number of people voting Libdem & Green combined. If Cameron had not wooed some of the Eurosceptics and UKIP had enjoyed the support of all sceptics, the movement to leave would have been stronger and perhaps unstoppable.

I can't help see the irony of people complaining that the referendum is just to keep a faction of the Tory party happy and then conceding that 24 million voters may share their desire to leave.

morstar

Lookyhere wrote:

if these risks of Brexit are real and represent a economic disaster for the UK, why did the government promise a referendum in the first place?
.

Because they're ideological policy views based on personal, not national interests.
The economic arguments for brexit seem based on the principle that in some cases, certain businesses will be able to leverage better deals for themselves without Eu legislation impeding them. I am categorically certain this will be the case. However, for every business that benefits, many more will lose out through picking up additional costs.
It's classic personal interest stumping national interest. Hence why it is primarily (but not exclusively) a right wing issue.
The amazing shift since the demise of the Major government is that the Eu has become a mainstream issue rather than the Tory internal squabble it used to be. That's why the immigration issue is the key to all of this as it has broadened the anti Eu appeal. The anti Eu right have convinced the working poor that immigration is the cause of their plight when exiting the Eu has nothing do with improving the lot of the working classes.

mr_goo

I cannot help think that Cameron's bluff has been called on the In/Out referendum. I believe he didn't count on the number of voters chomping at the bit to vote Out. Hence why he is calling in as many favours as possible to put forward the case to stay in. From all the scaremongering proclaimed by the banking and industry leaders, Junkers, Osborne, Obama et all they might just as well use an image like the below and have done with.



OUT.

rick_chasey

Well THAT convinced me.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

I cannot help think that Cameron's bluff has been called on the In/Out referendum. I believe he didn't count on the number of voters chomping at the bit to vote Out. Hence why he is calling in as many favours as possible to put forward the case to stay in. From all the scaremongering proclaimed by the banking and industry leaders, Junkers, Osborne, Obama et all they might just as well use an image like the below and have done with.



OUT.

another interpretation is that it is a campaign of 100 days and they are pacing themselves - and doing surprisingly well at it. In comparison the Outers seem to be increasingly reliant on Gove. Boris has disappeared off the face of the planet

rick_chasey

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/gra ... #.miWXpGEJ

surrey_commuter

I have never doubted that IN will win but this week's performance has cheered me up no end. It is like somebody is working their way down a spreadsheet of events/releases. Coupled with that the Out campaigners are increasingly looking lightweight.

mrfpb

I currently intend to vote leave, but the leave side has had me in despair this week. Do people believe that Obama will read any of the Facebook rants they direct at him.

People don't seem to realise he is the leader of a much bigger more successful version of the EU. His equivalent isn't voting to close or open a border with Mexico, it's like New York or Texas having a vote on whether to leave the USA.

surrey_commuter

I always saw it as one third wanting out, one third committed to staying and one third undecided. As the outs have virtually admitted that the only reasons for leaving are ideological why would any of the undecided swing to the out. Other than a particularly brutal crime committed by an EU immigrant.

Taeo1

In (until I get a few cycling holidays in the Alps at least!!)

coopster_the_1st

Taeo1 wrote:

In (until I get a few cycling holidays in the Alps at least!!)

I tad :? here. Why would being out of the EU make any difference to this?

The French are going to intentional hamper their tourism and block people from the UK entering France :?:

mr_goo

James Clapper, the Director of US National Intelligence has stated that IS/ISIS have terror cells in the UK and Germany & Italy. These said terrorists have entered into Europe and into our country via the refugee crisis and used the EU's open borders policy of free movement to gain access to UK. He states that the EU's policy on free movement and it's need to enforce this is at odds with any sovereign states requirement to ensure the security of it's citizens.

Therefore forumites, why was Obama telling us little sheep in the UK to stay in the EU,when one of it's fundamental policies comprises the safety of the citizens within it?

So I ask you this. Are trade deals more important than the safety of the people of the United Kingdom?
The first duty of any country is to ensure the security of it's citizens. If being in the EU comprises the security of this country then I want out.

rick_chasey

Out of interest, when was the last time you left or entered Britain without a passport and without passigk border control?

prhymeate

Mr Goo wrote:

James Clapper, the Director of US National Intelligence has stated that IS/ISIS have terror cells in the UK and Germany & Italy. These said terrorists have entered into Europe and into our country via the refugee crisis and used the EU's open borders policy of free movement to gain access to UK. He states that the EU's policy on free movement and it's need to enforce this is at odds with any sovereign states requirement to ensure the security of it's citizens.

Therefore forumites, why was Obama telling us little sheep in the UK to stay in the EU,when one of it's fundamental policies comprises the safety of the citizens within it?

So I ask you this. Are trade deals more important than the safety of the people of the United Kingdom?
The first duty of any country is to ensure the security of it's citizens. If being in the EU comprises the security of this country then I want out.

We are not part of the Schengen Area.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

James Clapper, the Director of US National Intelligence has stated that IS/ISIS have terror cells in the UK and Germany & Italy. These said terrorists have entered into Europe and into our country via the refugee crisis and used the EU's open borders policy of free movement to gain access to UK. He states that the EU's policy on free movement and it's need to enforce this is at odds with any sovereign states requirement to ensure the security of it's citizens.

Therefore forumites, why was Obama telling us little sheep in the UK to stay in the EU,when one of it's fundamental policies comprises the safety of the citizens within it?

So I ask you this. Are trade deals more important than the safety of the people of the United Kingdom?
The first duty of any country is to ensure the security of it's citizens. If being in the EU comprises the security of this country then I want out.

Stable door..... With our so called border force we have failed to stop the free flow of ISIS fighters , at least 500 per year, to Syria and back again, why do you think leaving eu will make that Harder? We cannot even stop lorry loads of illegal immigrants, despite the border being in France.
If there is less eu sharing of Intel with uk after exit, that could compromise our security.

bobmcstuff

https://next.ft.com/content/c91b54c6-0c ... 4ab5211a2f

General gist is that the young are going to be most affected by an Out vote and are also most in support of staying In, but much less likely to vote.

"It is unsurprising then that opinion surveys indicate that somewhere between two-thirds and three quarters of 18-24 year olds favour Britain staying in the EU. The pro-European camp can also claim the allegiance of a healthy majority of those in their late 20s and 30s. British Euroscepticism, it seems, is a condition that takes hold in middle age and advances steadily through the succeeding decades."

We've also grown up with all of the EU benefits (freedom to travel etc.), don't remember any British empire and generally don't care whether Obama has a bust of Churchill nor where he keeps it.

Unfortunately older people are disproportionately more likely to vote in the first place and to vote Leave (2/3 of the over-65s who have made up their minds favour Out).

ballysmate

Unfortunately older people are disproportionately more likely to vote in the first place

????

As opposed to the Playstation generation who can't be arsed to put down their game controller to vote.

As I have previously stated, I am minded to vote to remain, but don't castigate people for caring about an issue and actually bothering to vote.

bobmcstuff

Ballysmate wrote:

Unfortunately older people are disproportionately more likely to vote in the first place

????

As opposed to the Playstation generation who can't be arsed to put down their game controller to vote.

As I have previously stated, I am minded to vote to remain, but don't castigate people for caring about an issue and actually bothering to vote.

I meant unfortunately for all the young people who want to stay in.

It's easy to blame young people for being lazy but we should be looking at the reasons why people feel disenfranchised and don't feel that voting has any impact, rather than suggesting they're just lazy (which is itself a lazy assertion )

ballysmate

If this was a general election I could more readily accept the argument of the young feeling apathy, but it is about an issue that transcends party politics and according to some people, will affect the young more than any other generation. And still, it seems, they will be the least bothered to vote.