BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Surrey Commuter wrote:Who do you think wrote Obamas speech for him?
I don't see Obama pushing for north Atlantic state of countries where they have open boarders with Canada, Mexico, etc. If came across as a 'Do as I say' not 'Do as I do' speech. Very much how most of the remain arguments are being presented!Surrey Commuter wrote:The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 gave us an opt-out of the Euro so not sure I count that as recent history. I am not sure it is cut and dried that joining the EU would have been bad for the UK economy and either way leaving the EU will probably be far more detrimental.
The vast majority of economists felt we would be worse off if we did not join the Euro. So you are not sure we would have been worse off if had joined the Euro despite having seen everything that has occurred recently but you are more sure that leaving the EU will be far more detrimental? You are discrediting yourself with these views!Surrey Commuter wrote:People do not need hypothesis for asessing the impact of being a member of the EU.
For balance the risks of staying should be highlighted by these institutions e.g. Italian banks, Greek debt crisis, Spanish youth unemployment, etc. Do you not ask yourself why they are only interested in talking down the UK economy if we vote leave but are unprepared to speak about real risks that are currently occurring today in the EU that could influence the vote?Surrey Commuter wrote:The "bastards" have been campaigning "out" for at least two decades why do you think they have failed to put together a coherent economic argument in that time? Yesterday Gove/Johnson announced that we would have an Australian Points System of immigration within three years of an out vote... why have they not been announcing similar policies? s an aside this will preclude us from having a Swiss/Norway trading relationship with the EU.
If you cannot address peoples views respectfully, as you and others have lowered yourself previously on this board, I'm not going to spend time responding your points. Despite what I think of Cameron, Corbyn, Osborne, etc I have addressed them and opposing views respectfully in my posts and views!Surrey Commuter wrote:As you have such contempt for the UK establishment why do you want to hand them more power?
Because they will be arguing in the UK interests rather than having it diluted by 27 other countries, somewhat a less of a bad thing. I don't see the Spanish* arguing for anything but their own interests no matter how it affects the UK.
*replace with any of the other EU member nations0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Who do you think wrote Obamas speech for him?
I don't see Obama pushing for north Atlantic state of countries where they have open boarders with Canada, Mexico, etc. If came across as a 'Do as I say' not 'Do as I do' speech. Very much how most of the remain arguments are being presented!
A more apt comparison would be his views on California ceding from the UnionSurrey Commuter wrote:The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 gave us an opt-out of the Euro so not sure I count that as recent history. I am not sure it is cut and dried that joining the EU would have been bad for the UK economy and either way leaving the EU will probably be far more detrimental.
The vast majority of economists felt we would be worse off if we did not join the Euro. So you are not sure we would have been worse off if had joined the Euro despite having seen everything that has occurred recently but you are more sure that leaving the EU will be far more detrimental? You are discrediting yourself with these views!
Most north European countries have done well out of the Euro. A period of relatively low interest rates and currency stability could have done us a favour. Everybody including the Brexiteers accept that leaving the EU will be detrimental in the short-term (ie 14 years)Surrey Commuter wrote:People do not need hypothesis for asessing the impact of being a member of the EU.
For balance the risks of staying should be highlighted by these institutions e.g. Italian banks, Greek debt crisis, Spanish youth unemployment, etc. Do you not ask yourself why they are only interested in talking down the UK economy if we vote leave but are unprepared to speak about real risks that are currently occurring today in the EU that could influence the vote?
The risk of contagion to UK banks will not go away so risk will be unchanged.Surrey Commuter wrote:The "bastards" have been campaigning "out" for at least two decades why do you think they have failed to put together a coherent economic argument in that time? Yesterday Gove/Johnson announced that we would have an Australian Points System of immigration within three years of an out vote... why have they not been announcing similar policies? s an aside this will preclude us from having a Swiss/Norway trading relationship with the EU.
If you cannot address peoples views respectfully, as you and others have lowered yourself previously on this board, I'm not going to spend time responding your points. Despite what I think of Cameron, Corbyn, Osborne, etc I have addressed them and opposing views respectfully in my posts and views!
This was the term used by John Major to describe the Brexiteers plotting against him. It is a widely recognised term and I used it to date how long this campaign has rumbled on.Surrey Commuter wrote:As you have such contempt for the UK establishment why do you want to hand them more power?
Because they will be arguing in the UK interests rather than having it diluted by 27 other countries, somewhat a less of a bad thing. I don't see the Spanish* arguing for anything but their own interests no matter how it affects the UK.
*replace with any of the other EU member nations
There is a strong argument that the out campaigners do not care about the common man because they live in gilded cages so a relevant economic decline will not impact their lives. They will progress their careers.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Most north European countries have done well out of the Euro. A period of relatively low interest rates and currency stability could have done us a favour. Everybody including the Brexiteers accept that leaving the EU will be detrimental in the short-term (ie 14 years)
14 years? This must be the treasury forecast you are referring to. Do even remainers believe those figures are accurate when they have been so easily discredited? The fact that the two leaders of the remain campaign are pushing those fear figures also discredits their argument. The leave campaign are discrediting themselves with their EU payment figure.Surrey Commuter wrote:]The risk of contagion to UK banks will not go away so risk will be unchanged.
Would this risk not increase if we leave? Why are they not telling us this in their forecasts? Fear of talking down the market? Why is it OK to talk down the market on one side but not another?
These 'independent' experts should still be highlighting the risks in their projections on a remain vote otherwise they do not look independent.Surrey Commuter wrote:There is a strong argument that the out campaigners do not care about the common man because they live in gilded cages so a relevant economic decline will not impact their lives. They will progress their careers.
This can be said for most of the politicians on both sides of the argument. Corbyn and Cameron on the remain, Boris on the leave. Only the Lib Dems, SNP & Greens have been consistent on their euro policy. As commented very accurately above all this does is leave voters feeling disengaged in the circus. I definitely feel this with the way the two most senior UK political figures have behaved!
The positive is any of these mentioned politicians can be voted out by the UK electorate. I cannot say the same for the leaders of the EU establishments.0 -
Coopster, i m probably 80% certain i ll vote remain...... but you can change my mind!
How is the UK going to be able to negotiate any trade deals out, that it cant do right now?
Doesnt Belgium export more to China than the UK? and most eu countries export more to India than we do? and if as you say, Spain can speak up for its population, within the EU, why cant the UK ?
also, what rules and regs can we free ourselves from that are holding us back now?
and finally, why would the EU or more specifically the french, stop migrants crossing the channel in RIBs, knowing full well that once 1/2 way across, they became our responsibility?
...convince me !0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:14 years? This must be the treasury forecast you are referring to. Do even remainers believe those figures are accurate when they have been so easily discredited? The fact that the two leaders of the remain campaign are pushing those fear figures also discredits their argument....
I refer you to an upthread post re the 14 years figure...orraloon wrote:There was a pro exit bloke Andrew Lilico interviewed on BBC World at One on Wednesday lunchtime. He is chairman of an outfit called Economists For Britain. It was the day the leavers were ranting about an IFS report as they didn't like the facts, whereas this guy was saying eh hold on, the IFS is independent, not best tactic to attack facts just because they counter your argument.
If YCBA the interview is on iPlayer Radio 4 from about 1.09pm, just after more nonsense from Mr Sidelined Farage.
Anyroads, one of his arguments appears to be that while yes there will be short term negative impact on UK finances, but by 2030 the UK should be growing faster (than something unspecified). Eh? 2030 is 14 years away. You really think 14 years of self inflicted economic woe is a worthwhile tradeoff for a vague hope that in 2030 the UK might be better off than it would be staying in?
The lunatics are indeed looking to take over the asylum.
Anyway, it would appear that the leavers have decided that economics is a no win, so switching arguments to the fear-the-foreigner stuff, again.
As an aside, if you want to hear a masterclass in balanced, well founded rationale for leave ( :? where's the no not really icon?) take a listen to Tim Martin, he of Wetherspoons fame, on BBC Radio 4 this morning, in the business section just before 0630. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Incoherent twaddle, sloganising and a complete disregard for the questions, such as which EU rules are hampering your business, posed by interviewer, who frankly let him off way too lightly.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Coopster, i m probably 80% certain i ll vote remain...... but you can change my mind!
I'll answer your questions where I can but all I would say is if you want fair and balanced questioning on the referendum, the best I've seen so far is Andrew Neill on the Daily/Sunday Politics show (catch up on iPlayer).Lookyhere wrote:How is the UK going to be able to negotiate any trade deals out, that it cant do right now?
Doesnt Belgium export more to China than the UK? and most eu countries export more to India than we do? and if as you say, Spain can speak up for its population, within the EU, why cant the UK ?
I don't know the detail of Belgium's export markets but I understand the reason they export more to countries like India and China is because it is mostly diamonds exported. (again, heard that on the daily politics show last week). So it's not just monetary value as I doubt there are many jobs in the Belgium diamond industry compared to the value of the exports.
The question I ask myself on the UK speaking up in the EU is do you think we get a fair hearing for what it contributes? We pay into the market and are a net importer of trade and labour thus supporting the EU in many ways. Everyone agrees on the remain side the EU needs reforming and based on the experience of February's renegotiation do you think that will happen if we remain? This is once we as a country have endorsed the EU but voting remain. Do you think we got a good deal in February's renegotiation when any output from the talks was sure to influence the referendum?Lookyhere wrote:also, what rules and regs can we free ourselves from that are holding us back now?
I'm not qualified to answer this. I'm sure upon investigation we could detail every rule. Upon a leave vote I expect all rules to continue as is until they are individually addressed. The difference with leaving is that the UK will be able to change them when they choose rather than others deciding for us.Lookyhere wrote:and finally, why would the EU or more specifically the french, stop migrants crossing the channel in RIBs, knowing full well that once 1/2 way across, they became our responsibility?
...convince me !
I understand that our migrant agreement with the French is a bi-lateral one and has no relevance to us being in the EU. However in the French case, if they were cooperating now on stopping migrants crossing to the UK, why is the 'jungle' migrant camp in existence. How much are they trying to stop this migration today? I'm sure the response to this issue would be negotiated alongside some other cooperation talks e.g. further sharing of security information
But then on the above point I don't understand why someone would risk their life to cross the channel in a RIB when they are already in a safe country. I think this demonstrates how attractive the UK is to everyone, from Albanian* migrants to big business
* The other surprise to me is that this weeks channel crossing story was Albanian nationals. 80% of their population speak Italian as a hangover from the days of Soviet rule when Italian TV was the only non-state TV they could receive. In this case it is obviously not a language reason why they are attracted to the UK and are prepared to risk their lives to get here :?0 -
well, the number one reason we are so attractive to a migrant is our non contributory benefits system, which as well as inc tax credits etc is the very generous housing benefit we give anyone in private rented accommodation but of course, any Gov in the last few Parliaments could have changed this but infact what they ve done is the opposite, taking away any contributory aspect.
Of course as more migrants come here, it attracts more as they ve friends/relatives here.
as for Belgium, Gems are in at no 7, Pharmaceuticals are no 1 but the point here is that the EU does not hold us back at all, it certainly hasnt stopped Belgium's exports accounting for over 80% of its GDP, what has destroyed the UKs exports is a complete lack of industrial policy and that wont change outside of the EU.
the UK s exports contribute about 18% to GDP, the $ per head are about 35k and 7k respectively, big difference eh?
the french help us out re migrants because we are in the EU, the pressure on towns like Calais to tear up UK borders on their soil can only increase once we are out.
the real villains here are people like IDS, Cameron, Osbourne and Blair/Brown et el before them, who have not bought in the right policies for the UK, once a world leader in so many industries and now a bit player, if that.0 -
Seems an odd way to address the issue of benefits reform, chucking our economic future onto the poker table and hoping the other players are not sharks. How does it go? If you can't spot the patsy at the table, it's you?
Pity no politician wanted to have a go at reforming our super-attractive-to-migrants benefits system, eh? Oh wait on... Good old IDS spent the past 6 years trying to do just that, before the threw his toys out and jumped on the Boris bus. It's like he failed or something.0 -
Ah, you know more than you originally let but so let's debate your points
Lookyhere wrote:well, the number one reason we are so attractive to a migrant is our non contributory benefits system, which as well as inc tax credits etc is the very generous housing benefit we give anyone in private rented accommodation but of course, any Gov in the last few Parliaments could have changed this but infact what they ve done is the opposite, taking away any contributory aspect.
Of course as more migrants come here, it attracts more as they ve friends/relatives here.
So you can see the flaw with our free movement of labour policy with the EU? Does this influence you enough to influence your vote?Lookyhere wrote:as for Belgium, Gems are in at no 7, Pharmaceuticals are no 1 but the point here is that the EU does not hold us back at all, it certainly hasnt stopped Belgium's exports accounting for over 80% of its GDP, what has destroyed the UKs exports is a complete lack of industrial policy and that wont change outside of the EU.
the UK s exports contribute about 18% to GDP, the $ per head are about 35k and 7k respectively, big difference eh?
Good on Belgium. Germany are also a very successful nation in the EU. There are many countries that are not.
I agree with you on the UK's industrial policy although the unions of the 60's, 70's & 80's have definitely not helped us here. Neither has globalisation but business will always move to lower cost where they can hence the growth of in AI and robotics. Driverless cars being a great example of this.Lookyhere wrote:the french help us out re migrants because we are in the EU, the pressure on towns like Calais to tear up UK borders on their soil can only increase once we are out.
You are incorrect on this point. The agreement with the French is a bi-lateral one and will not change if we are in the EU or out.Lookyhere wrote:the real villains here are people like IDS, Cameron, Osbourne and Blair/Brown et el before them, who have not bought in the right policies for the UK, once a world leader in so many industries and now a bit player, if that.
I'm not sure I'd bracket IDS with the others, and my view is Brown is the worst out of the all the names you list for how his decisions have handicapped the UK. However Blair (Iraq war), Cameron & Osborne (both EU referendum) are catching up Brown but that is in a race to the bottom. The one thing I note of the names you mention, the 4 out of the 5 that have held real power are all on the remain side. It does get you thinking... :?:0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It is really crazy that after so many third party experts saying it will be really quite bad if the UK leaves, they just get ignored.
It's shameful really. The UK mocks Trump supporters but to my mind it's no different.
Why do you guys think the BoE says unanimously it'll be bad?
Everyone is scared of the short-term volatility, but that doesn't mean it is definitely a bad idea. If you look at Greece, the safe, do nothing option has been successfully taken for six years. This has avoided a lot of the short-term volatility that everyone feared, but the real question that should be asked is are the Greek people now better off than they would have been if they had defaulted and left the Euro. It's this complete inaction of the Eurozone countries that puts me off the EU.
Separately Mervyn King had some sage words on the subject of the vote and the debate."I'm old enough to remember the referendum in Britain in 1975 on exactly the same issue. The one thing that both sides of the argument then were wrong about was that it would make a dramatic difference. It didn't.
"I think it's very important that people should not exaggerate the impact, either of staying in or of leaving.
"I do worry that people on both sides treating this as a public relations campaign rather than as a debate on the future of our country are inclined to exaggerate because they feel they are selling a position.
"What is more important is that we have a calm and reflective debate about the role of Britain in Europe. Our relationship with a continent which we have struggled with for several hundred years."0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It is really crazy that after so many third party experts saying it will be really quite bad if the UK leaves, they just get ignored.
It's shameful really. The UK mocks Trump supporters but to my mind it's no different.
Why do you guys think the BoE says unanimously it'll be bad?
Everyone is scared of the short-term volatility, but that doesn't mean it is definitely a bad idea. If you look at Greece, the safe, do nothing option has been successfully taken for six years. This has avoided a lot of the short-term volatility that everyone feared, but the real question that should be asked is are the Greek people now better off than they would have been if they had defaulted and left the Euro. It's this complete inaction of the Eurozone countries that puts me off the EU.
Separately Mervyn King had some sage words on the subject of the vote and the debate."I'm old enough to remember the referendum in Britain in 1975 on exactly the same issue. The one thing that both sides of the argument then were wrong about was that it would make a dramatic difference. It didn't.
"I think it's very important that people should not exaggerate the impact, either of staying in or of leaving.
"I do worry that people on both sides treating this as a public relations campaign rather than as a debate on the future of our country are inclined to exaggerate because they feel they are selling a position.
"What is more important is that we have a calm and reflective debate about the role of Britain in Europe. Our relationship with a continent which we have struggled with for several hundred years."
Exactly what short term volatility has Greece avoided?0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Most north European countries have done well out of the Euro. A period of relatively low interest rates and currency stability could have done us a favour. Everybody including the Brexiteers accept that leaving the EU will be detrimental in the short-term (ie 14 years)
14 years? This must be the treasury forecast you are referring to. Do even remainers believe those figures are accurate when they have been so easily discredited? The fact that the two leaders of the remain campaign are pushing those fear figures also discredits their argument. The leave campaign are discrediting themselves with their EU payment figure.Surrey Commuter wrote:]The risk of contagion to UK banks will not go away so risk will be unchanged.
Would this risk not increase if we leave? Why are they not telling us this in their forecasts? Fear of talking down the market? Why is it OK to talk down the market on one side but not another?
These 'independent' experts should still be highlighting the risks in their projections on a remain vote otherwise they do not look independent.
the risk is that Uk banks hold Italian/Greek/Portuguese and Spanish bank debt plus debt of other banks that might get taken down in a domino effect. So no the Uk leaving the Uk will have no effect on the level of risk.
As for the monthly report it will mention ongoing risks such as Chinese debt but will highlight new issues - such as leaving the EU.
The Brexit leaders all accept there will be a short-term (14 year) economic downside to leavin the EU but that it is a price worth paying. Why do you disagree with them?0 -
The BoE is not independent. It is 100% owned by the Treasury currently led by George Osborne, and subject to their policies and guidance. Just to reiterate George Osborne is Mark Carney's boss.
The concept of "independence" dates from the setting up of the monetary policy committee by Gordon Brown, before this the Chancellor was directly responsible for interest rate decisions, which he did in consultation with the BoE Governor. Brown handed this responsibility to the bank by writing the priorities they must follow when setting rates. The fact that no Chancellor has changed the rules since 1997 does not take away from the fact that they can, or that they can take back the decision making power for themselves.
Likewise the BoE monthly report is written in response to the Treasury's questions on the economy. The Treasury (George Osborne) sets the tone of the report by asking the questions it wants answered and not asking questions that it doesn't want answered.0 -
The decision on the Euro was completely toxic for all parties in 1997, as anyone who remembers John Majors speech to conference - "don't tie my hands" - can agree.Rick Chasey wrote:Are the views really third party? They are in the BoE. By law they have to be.
As for the calls, re the crash I've already dealt with that above and re joining the single currency, the ERM wasn't advised by economists and was pushed through anyway, hence black Wednesday.
In 97 the treasury analysed the situation and decided that conditions were not right for joining the Euro so they didn't. That's seen, rightly, as an economically sound decision. That time people listened to the experts and it came out ok.
The "sound economic decision" not to join was based on Gordon Brown writing five economic "Golden Rules" for joining, which was his way of kicking the Euro decision into the long grass, where no politician since has dared to go looking for it. Ultimately it was dressed up as an economic decision, as a political decision either way would have been unacceptable to a good chunk of the Labour Party0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:The Brexit leaders all accept there will be a short-term (14 year) economic downside to leavin the EU but that it is a price worth paying. Why do you disagree with them?
I've now listened to the interview where you and orraloon take your 14 year figure from. You've taken one snippet without listening to the answer to the whole question. If what you say was the case, the remain camp (and not just you two) would have jumped on this and bringing it up on every message. I've only heard it here and from you two. Why is this?
Having listened to it a couple of times, the message I get is that by the end of the period (2030) he is saying we will be 2% better off than what the IFS document states.
I don't believe the IFS report is biased but their report is based on other economic reports produced which I do not believe are independent i.e the Treasury report, etc.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Lookyhere wrote:well, the number one reason we are so attractive to a migrant is our non contributory benefits system, which as well as inc tax credits etc is the very generous housing benefit we give anyone in private rented accommodation but of course, any Gov in the last few Parliaments could have changed this but infact what they ve done is the opposite, taking away any contributory aspect.
Of course as more migrants come here, it attracts more as they ve friends/relatives here.
So you can see the flaw with our free movement of labour policy with the EU? Does this influence you enough to influence your vote?
Well, uncontrolled immigration a big concern for me and it is why i m not 100% in the IN camp.
The bi lateral agreement can be torn up, as its clearly in our favour, i dont see migrant camps in Kent full of people trying to get into France?
However, i see a longer term issue here, when i was a kid, picking flowers, digging bulbs or planting strawberry plants, infact do anything to escape the shame of the dole office on a thursday morning.
But this has changed, so we now have 2m home grown unemployed and we import europeans do this sort of work, amongst other labour shortages, and our lack of investment in education shares some blame here too.
you cant humanely force people to work, so (once out) we ll still need migrant workers and our NHS relies on europeans for it to function.
But until we get a contributory benefits system, we ll continue to churn out people who wont work and we ll continue to be a magnet for immigrants, IN or OUT.
So far no one is suggesting this change, despite the fact (i believe) we are the only European country to have such a system.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The Brexit leaders all accept there will be a short-term (14 year) economic downside to leavin the EU but that it is a price worth paying. Why do you disagree with them?
I've now listened to the interview where you and orraloon take your 14 year figure from. You've taken one snippet without listening to the answer to the whole question. If what you say was the case, the remain camp (and not just you two) would have jumped on this and bringing it up on every message. I've only heard it here and from you two. Why is this?
Having listened to it a couple of times, the message I get is that by the end of the period (2030) he is saying we will be 2% better off than what the IFS document states.
I don't believe the IFS report is biased but their report is based on other economic reports produced which I do not believe are independent i.e the Treasury report, etc.
we are talking about different things. Think about the financial crash... it took 7 (?) years to get back to the level of GDP pre-crash. Unless the changes to the banking system result in some unforseen benefits then GDP will still be lower than if the crash never happened.
So in the example above Brexiteers accept that if we vote to leave then there will be a negative impact on the economy for 13 years. They then hope that the benefits of leaving will kick in and we will be better off by 2014.
14 years sound like a long time but if you chunk it down it seems more realistic.
Two years of exit negotiations will create uncertainty that will leave the economy in limbo. Then chose a length of time that you think will be reasonable to implement all of the changes and negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world that will supercharge the economy - let's say 5 years. That leaves you 7 years of growth above long-term trend rates to repair the damage.
The problem in the above scenario is that the downside is not disputed by anybody but that the upside is essentially wishful thinking.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:we are talking about different things. Think about the financial crash... it took 7 (?) years to get back to the level of GDP pre-crash. Unless the changes to the banking system result in some unforseen benefits then GDP will still be lower than if the crash never happened.
So in the example above Brexiteers accept that if we vote to leave then there will be a negative impact on the economy for 13 years. They then hope that the benefits of leaving will kick in and we will be better off by 2014.
14 years sound like a long time but if you chunk it down it seems more realistic.
Two years of exit negotiations will create uncertainty that will leave the economy in limbo. Then chose a length of time that you think will be reasonable to implement all of the changes and negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world that will supercharge the economy - let's say 5 years. That leaves you 7 years of growth above long-term trend rates to repair the damage.
The problem in the above scenario is that the downside is not disputed by anybody but that the upside is essentially wishful thinking.
The reality is no-one knows what is going to happen after a leave vote, I certainly don't, the same for you, so saying one thing is 'not disputed' and the opposite is 'wishful thinking' doesn't matter when we don't know. We also know the 'experts' cannot predict correctly what will happen to the economy if we vote to stay. To summarise the only thing we know is that we don't know
On a side point there's a good chance we've got a recession coming no matter what the result due to us being in the second longest period of growth in history but that is not related to this referendum.
The man and woman on the street is not taking as much notice of the economic predictions as the remain camp want because they do not trust the experts. This is because it is easy for them to see that they have been wrong in their predictions in the recent past. If they had been correct in predicting the 2008 financial crash they would have some credibility. This is the issue the remain camp have and the predictions just look like project fear.
You even have the leader of the opposition campaigning for the remain side but the majority of the points he makes are criticising the EU.
I think remain would win the referendum easily if they could sell a positive message on the EU. The fact they cannot says so much...0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:we are talking about different things. Think about the financial crash... it took 7 (?) years to get back to the level of GDP pre-crash. Unless the changes to the banking system result in some unforseen benefits then GDP will still be lower than if the crash never happened.
So in the example above Brexiteers accept that if we vote to leave then there will be a negative impact on the economy for 13 years. They then hope that the benefits of leaving will kick in and we will be better off by 2014.
14 years sound like a long time but if you chunk it down it seems more realistic.
Two years of exit negotiations will create uncertainty that will leave the economy in limbo. Then chose a length of time that you think will be reasonable to implement all of the changes and negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world that will supercharge the economy - let's say 5 years. That leaves you 7 years of growth above long-term trend rates to repair the damage.
The problem in the above scenario is that the downside is not disputed by anybody but that the upside is essentially wishful thinking.
The reality is no-one knows what is going to happen after a leave vote, I certainly don't, the same for you, so saying one thing is 'not disputed' and the opposite is 'wishful thinking' doesn't matter when we don't know. We also know the 'experts' cannot predict correctly what will happen to the economy if we vote to stay. To summarise the only thing we know is that we don't know
On a side point there's a good chance we've got a recession coming no matter what the result due to us being in the second longest period of growth in history but that is not related to this referendum.
The man and woman on the street is not taking as much notice of the economic predictions as the remain camp want because they do not trust the experts. This is because it is easy for them to see that they have been wrong in their predictions in the recent past. If they had been correct in predicting the 2008 financial crash they would have some credibility. This is the issue the remain camp have and the predictions just look like project fear.
You even have the leader of the opposition campaigning for the remain side but the majority of the points he makes are criticising the EU.
I think remain would win the referendum easily if they could sell a positive message on the EU. The fact they cannot says so much...
It is not me saying that it is not disputed - that is a fact!!! Boris/Gove and co all agree. The economy is already grinding to a halt because of the uncertainty... throw in two more years of uncertainty and you can confidently predict that economic performance will be worse after an out vote. Predicting an upturn in 7 years time based upon favourable assumptions is wishful thing but call it optimistic forecasting if you want.
Nobody is saying they know what will happen to the economy - they are talking about relative performance... ie everybody agrees that in the next 2 years relative performance will be better with an in-vote.
Wiser people than you think the biggest problem for the Remain camp is getting people to vote... that is why they are trying to scare them to do so rather than a soft message on EU benefits.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:The reality is no-one knows what is going to happen after a leave vote, I certainly don't, the same for you, so saying one thing is 'not disputed' and the opposite is 'wishful thinking' doesn't matter when we don't know. We also know the 'experts' cannot predict correctly what will happen to the economy if we vote to stay. To summarise the only thing we know is that we don't know
On a side point there's a good chance we've got a recession coming no matter what the result due to us being in the second longest period of growth in history but that is not related to this referendum.
The man and woman on the street is not taking as much notice of the economic predictions as the remain camp want because they do not trust the experts. This is because it is easy for them to see that they have been wrong in their predictions in the recent past. If they had been correct in predicting the 2008 financial crash they would have some credibility. This is the issue the remain camp have and the predictions just look like project fear.
You even have the leader of the opposition campaigning for the remain side but the majority of the points he makes are criticising the EU.
I think remain would win the referendum easily if they could sell a positive message on the EU. The fact they cannot says so much...
i hear positives messages about remaining IN the EU, environment, trade, visa free travel, employment rights, euro wide air travel - these are real tangible benefits that most of us have experienced, where-as the positives for voting OUT seem very dreamy i.e taking control, forging new trade deals, points immigration system and removing VAT on fuel
what the INs lack is passion and a strong figure head, no one likes Cameron, they ve no Farage or Boris and no matter how sincere Corbyn is, he sounds as dreary as dish water when he talks about EU.
Sure there are the stupid scare stories... on both sides but for me, voting out, is forever, where as we can stay IN, and be a positive voice for change in the EU and it will change, the rise of the extreme right wing needs to be met head on and EU will need to change its direction and i hope the first thing to go will be free movement of people, to be replaced with free movement of labour, the movement of people is as damaging for the source country as it can be for the recipient country.
So, if the EU doesnt change in the next 2 or 3 years, we can have another vote and leave, this to me seems the most sensible policy.0 -
and i hope the first thing to go will be free movement of people, to be replaced with free movement of labour, the movement of people is as damaging for the source country as it can be for the recipient country.
So, if the EU doesnt change in the next 2 or 3 years, we can have another vote and leave, this to me seems the most sensible policy.
But Cameron had this debate with the EU in Feb, and it was made clear that free movement of people is non-negotiable. Cameron has also poo-pooed Boris's idea of using a leave vote to renegoitae and have a second vote. If we vote to stay then EU leaders will assume we are happy with the deal that Cameron negaotiated (which some of them think is more than we deserve) and will not be willing to go through another such negotiation for a generation or more. Possibly this would be part of the haggling that will go on over Turkey joining; that's estimated to be 10 - 15 years away.0 -
I think we forget what removing free movement of people would really entail. There literally is nothing between the borders of the Mainland Europe countries any more - in places there is nt even a sign.
Genuinely reinstating it - in any meaningful way - would be a massive massive fence building job.
Ok, so you could restrict where people could claim benefits (though to claim my Dutch unemployment I had to have worked for a year plus and then I only get 3 months) or work but in reality then you re just restricting free movement of labour. It wouldnt solve any of the issues that the Daily Mail shrieks about...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:It is not me saying that it is not disputed - that is a fact!!! Boris/Gove and co all agree.
OK, please give me a link to Boris, Gove or IDS saying we will be worse off in 14 years time? I've not seen this and it is a strong argument. So strong that I would expect Cameron or Osborne to be repeating this hourly instead of the £4300 worse off fiction number. Of all the reading I've done on this subject I've only see two people on BikeRadar state what you have above.
The economy is already grinding to a halt because of the uncertainty... throw in two more years of uncertainty and you can confidently predict that economic performance will be worse after an out vote. Predicting an upturn in 7 years time based upon favourable assumptions is wishful thing but call it optimistic forecasting if you want.Surrey Commuter wrote:Nobody is saying they know what will happen to the economy - they are talking about relative performance... ie everybody agrees that in the next 2 years relative performance will be better with an in-vote.
These economic predictions of what will happen in the next two years. What sample size i.e. how many countries have left a trading block before, are they basing this prediction on?Surrey Commuter wrote:Wiser people than you think the biggest problem for the Remain camp is getting people to vote... that is why they are trying to scare them to do so rather than a soft message on EU benefits.
Surely if the EU was so good getting remainers out to vote would be easy as the benefits would be so clear to see and to sell to the UK public. Using negatives to prove that something is positive is a weak argument0 -
ddraver wrote:I think we forget what removing free movement of people would really entail. There literally is nothing between the borders of the Mainland Europe countries any more - in places there is nt even a sign.
Genuinely reinstating it - in any meaningful way - would be a massive massive fence building job.
Ok, so you could restrict where people could claim benefits (though to claim my Dutch unemployment I had to have worked for a year plus and then I only get 3 months) or work but in reality then you re just restricting free movement of labour. It wouldnt solve any of the issues that the Daily Mail shrieks about...
This referendum is not about removing free movement of labour between mainland EU countries so I fail to see the relevance of your point for this referendum.
It's interesting to see the difference between how you become eligible for Dutch benefits and UK benefits though.0 -
The thing is, the current Government could do that. Today.Coopster the 1st wrote:It's interesting to see the difference between how you become eligible for Dutch benefits and UK benefits though.
And previous governments could have done it too.
Why don't/didn't they?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is not me saying that it is not disputed - that is a fact!!! Boris/Gove and co all agree.
OK, please give me a link to Boris, Gove or IDS saying we will be worse off in 14 years time? I've not seen this and it is a strong argument. So strong that I would expect Cameron or Osborne to be repeating this hourly instead of the £4300 worse off fiction number. Of all the reading I've done on this subject I've only see two people on BikeRadar state what you have above.
The economy is already grinding to a halt because of the uncertainty... throw in two more years of uncertainty and you can confidently predict that economic performance will be worse after an out vote. Predicting an upturn in 7 years time based upon favourable assumptions is wishful thing but call it optimistic forecasting if you want.Surrey Commuter wrote:Nobody is saying they know what will happen to the economy - they are talking about relative performance... ie everybody agrees that in the next 2 years relative performance will be better with an in-vote.
These economic predictions of what will happen in the next two years. What sample size i.e. how many countries have left a trading block before, are they basing this prediction on?Surrey Commuter wrote:Wiser people than you think the biggest problem for the Remain camp is getting people to vote... that is why they are trying to scare them to do so rather than a soft message on EU benefits.
Surely if the EU was so good getting remainers out to vote would be easy as the benefits would be so clear to see and to sell to the UK public. Using negatives to prove that something is positive is a weak argument
Countries leaving a trading bloc - how about the old Soviet Union? check out Cuba.0 -
ddraver wrote:Perhaps it's not all about you Coop....
I have 1 vote the same as everyone else who is registered to vote in the UK referendum.
You raised an issue that has no relevance to the UK's referendum vote or this thread topic...0 -
I think it is fairly certain that we will get a vote.ddraver wrote:Again...it's not about you. Read the thread.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
