BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stuf

stuff

other stuff

I seem to have been defending someone else's words as my own. Apologies to Coopster and Rick

I answered Goo in a very civilised manner but got a rant about fishing - would you mind answering

I'm not sure I 'ranted' about fishing industry Mr Surrey Commuter.
As you have an economics degree, which I am sure would have involved looking at contributors to a state's economy, I wanted an explanation and your views on why you think being an EU member is beneficial to the UK Fishing fleet.

Most plebs like me know that the UK Fishing industry has been decimated by the EU. Yet it is something that the Remain campaign do not want to engage in dialogue. They merely send out a multi millionaire pop star come self proclaimed saviour of the 3rd world to slag off the fishermen.

FYI. I work in construction industry. Basic rate tax payer. Secondary school education. Small house. Wife 2 children. 2 cats. Gold tench in a small pond. Therefore officially classified as Pleb in the eyes of the educated, self righteous and who love to talk down to those who dare to think about their communities and country rather than their portfolio.

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I'm not a UKIP supporter and I'm voting out. UKIP got 4 mill votes approx. at the last election. The winning side in this referendum will need at least 10 million, if not 15 million votes. Whoever wins will have the support of a wide cross section of the population.

this is the big problem though, you are passionately anti EU and i am equally pro, if 15m vote OUT, likely 13 or 14m will vote IN.

either way a huge number of people will be disenfranchised, not just for a GE or 2 but decades to come.

i used to think having the vote on this was a good thing but i ve changed on this, its going to prove very decisive, look what its done to the Tory party for starters.

Of course there will be a 'losing' side. The fact that the defeated side will be disappoined is no reason not to hold a vote.

Lookyhere

if the EU has decimated uk fishing as opposed to over fishing by uk fishermen, then these negotiations were done and agreed to by our elected leaders over the decades.

this from an anti EU article....

"From French wineries to the German automotive industry, it is clear other member states do all they can to protect important sections of their own economy and heritage, while British politicians willingly give away one of our own"

How is this the fault of the EU ?

Jez mon

Or are the British politicians better at spin...any successes are down to domestic policy, any issues down to diktats from Brussels?

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stuf

stuff

other stuff

I seem to have been defending someone else's words as my own. Apologies to Coopster and Rick

I answered Goo in a very civilised manner but got a rant about fishing - would you mind answering

I'm not sure I 'ranted' about fishing industry Mr Surrey Commuter.
As you have an economics degree, which I am sure would have involved looking at contributors to a state's economy, I wanted an explanation and your views on why you think being an EU member is beneficial to the UK Fishing fleet.

Most plebs like me know that the UK Fishing industry has been decimated by the EU. Yet it is something that the Remain campaign do not want to engage in dialogue. They merely send out a multi millionaire pop star come self proclaimed saviour of the 3rd world to slag off the fishermen.

FYI. I work in construction industry. Basic rate tax payer. Secondary school education. Small house. Wife 2 children. 2 cats. Gold tench in a small pond. Therefore officially classified as Pleb in the eyes of the educated, self righteous and who love to talk down to those who dare to think about their communities and country rather than their portfolio.

OK have just found figures from 24th September 2015 and the UK fishing industry is worth £861,000,000. Whilst that is important to the 11,800 people working in that industry it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. The UK economy is worth nearly £3,000,000,000,000, which I think is 0.03%.

You may hate "the city" but they are the ones who fund everything

4kicks

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stuf

stuff

other stuff

I seem to have been defending someone else's words as my own. Apologies to Coopster and Rick

I answered Goo in a very civilised manner but got a rant about fishing - would you mind answering

I'm not sure I 'ranted' about fishing industry Mr Surrey Commuter.
As you have an economics degree, which I am sure would have involved looking at contributors to a state's economy, I wanted an explanation and your views on why you think being an EU member is beneficial to the UK Fishing fleet.

Most plebs like me know that the UK Fishing industry has been decimated by the EU. Yet it is something that the Remain campaign do not want to engage in dialogue. They merely send out a multi millionaire pop star come self proclaimed saviour of the 3rd world to slag off the fishermen.

FYI. I work in construction industry. Basic rate tax payer. Secondary school education. Small house. Wife 2 children. 2 cats. Gold tench in a small pond. Therefore officially classified as Pleb in the eyes of the educated, self righteous and who love to talk down to those who dare to think about their communities and country rather than their portfolio.

Look youve clearly thought about your vote and I certainly dont want to add fuel to what is already a pretty big bonfire, but the issue I have is when this is painted as "normal" people - (plebs to use your words, not mine) voting out to reclaim sovereignty and community against the ruling elite and special interests, but this vote is too important to be seen as a common man thing. There is a fallacy that normal people will somehow get less sh*t upon from above in a Brexit world. Things like the economy, house prices etc affect the Ford Man much more than they do the Boris Johnsons and Farages of this world. Did you not stop to consider why, for example, the Labour party is in its entirety of disparate fractions pro Europe (I think that their lukewarm support in order to destroy the Tory party with infighting will probably backfire) but, to take your very case in point, do you believe that the UK fishing fleet will benefit when its not as easily or cheaply able to export to Europe? I come from a small fishing village in South Devon,where ALL the produce gets exported immediately to France...you think the French and Spanish aren't going to seize the opportunity to block UK fish imports??
And as an aside, I find the whole issue of "well have less imigrants in brexit world" to be baffling - except in the case that the UK economy gets so totally F**cked that all the Brits will have to travel to Albania to get higher paying jobs...

coopster_the_1st

Lookyhere wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

I'm not a UKIP supporter and I'm voting out. UKIP got 4 mill votes approx. at the last election. The winning side in this referendum will need at least 10 million, if not 15 million votes. Whoever wins will have the support of a wide cross section of the population.

this is the big problem though, you are passionately anti EU and i am equally pro, if 15m vote OUT, likely 13 or 14m will vote IN.

either way a huge number of people will be disenfranchised, not just for a GE or 2 but decades to come.

i used to think having the vote on this was a good thing but i ve changed on this, its going to prove very decisive, look what its done to the Tory party for starters.

I still think remain will win.

However there are already a huge number of people disenfranchised because their elected representative is not listening or responding to their concerns. This is most seen in labour areas where their electoral demographic are hardest hit an almost unlimited supply of cheap labour

ugo.santalucia

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I still think remain will win.

The view is shared by Ladbrokes

Coopster the 1st wrote:

However there are already a huge number of people disenfranchised because their elected representative is not listening or responding to their concerns. This is most seen in labour areas where their electoral demographic are hardest hit an almost unlimited supply of cheap labour

Do you genuinely believe wages will go up if there is less competition from the EU migrants? In principle I agree that wages are driven by the market, but fewer people also means fewer jobs in proportion, so I am not sure there will be more jobs per head.
Then there is the question of whether the cabbage grower from Lincolnshire will be able to sell his produe to Tesco at a higher price because he has to pay his workers more. it seems to me Tesco are rather ruthless and if they can't buy cabbage at the price they want, they will source it elsewhere, de facto sending both farmer and workers into unemployment. Alternatively, he will sell his produce at cost or less and then ask for subsidies, which is a polished form of asking for benefits.

On a more general note, I think we as a global community got into this mess of relying completley on each other and pretending to be better off by not playing the game is utopia. I am not even sure we have a political class who is actually able to legislate, entangled as they are in campaigning to keep their post 24/7

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

OK have just found figures from 24th September 2015 and the UK fishing industry is worth £861,000,000. Whilst that is important to the 11,800 people working in that industry it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. The UK economy is worth nearly £3,000,000,000,000, which I think is 0.03%.

I am presuming but, if you were to compare that 0.03% to the percentage from 1976 then you may be able to see the point being made.

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

Has anyone else seen the latest Exit Referendum Broadcast with the 'sliding doors' approach showing someone's granny getting NHS treatment if we stay in and if we exit? In a campaign that has been defined by ridiculous claims and scaremongering by both sides it stands out as embarrassing but the problem is there are an element who will fall for it. Even ignoring the basic premise that the '£350 million a week' (the figure that excludes our rebate, money that comes back in funding for various initiatives that would have to be provided for from UK sources and whatever amount we have to pay to be members of this new trade arrangement with the EU) will be spent on the NHS instead how can they justify the different scenarios? What will happen to the NHS in the short term if EU immigrants in their workforce decide they want to return home or work elsewhere in the EU as a result of the out vote? We could end up with a shortage of qualified staff that would take years of training to replace. I think my wife is planning to vote for exit but even she laughed at the things being said.

There's also the dubious claim that £350 million could build a new hospital a week. Maybe that's true but the real cost of a hospital is in keeping it equipped and staffed to the latest standards.

Why is it these election broadcasts (by both sides) can pretty much say anything they want without censure whereas an advert for a product would be taken off the air if it made a similar standard of claim?

I have seen it... it's embarrassing. I also don't understand why, if they claim this is for the future of the nation, for the next generation, for the next 20-40 years... then why they specifically target those who don't have 20-40 years to live?
It seems to me the leave campaign has given up on the younger generations, which is just not right, the message comes across as: let your granny decide about your future...

I agree with Pross on this about there being no censure on the claims made by both sides.

However, the difference between the campaigns is that leave one presents a positive message* (I'm ignoring the £350m figure as that has been debated enough) whereas the remain one (and basing this on the empty purse of a pensioner poster*) is a negative message.

Positive messages are more influential than negative messages. And this to me sums up differences between the two sides of the campaign.

Just look at the trade negotiation posts. The remain is a negative approach whereas the leave is positive.

*I don't believe either will happen as presented hence my agreement with Pross

You make a fair point and, if they win next week, then I do believe it's that positivity that won it.

Thing is, like all art be that music, books and films, it's still fiction. The portrayal of hope is as much guesswork as the portrayal of doom. The only constant is where we are now. So if you subscribe to a world of rolling green hills, real ale, bulldog spirit and pie and chips I can see why you'd be swayed by hope. And whatever your subscription I can see why fear doesn't really work. Indeed, many commentators have been swayed against the messages of negativity. When the campaign is done, and the dust settles, much will be written on the tone of the campaign because, frankly, facts have been impossible to come by.

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

If the first casualty of war is truth then it's been a particularly bloody war.

mrfpb

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

You would think in the age of Google that this would be the best informed debate the country has ever had - certainly more so than 1975, as we have 41 more yrs of membership to look back on. For example I have been assuming it was 1974 for most of my posts, and only just Googled the actual date!

Pross

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

If the first casualty of war is truth then it's been a particularly bloody war.

This is the issue for me. I think both sides have accepted that they aren't going to change the minds of those who are reasonably educated and able to research things for themselves and so are concentrating on those who they can steer to their side by playing on their concerns and / or prejudices whether that's their pensions getting hit by an exit, the continued demise of the NHS if we stay or driving out the job stealing / benefit claiming immigrants by leaving.

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

If the first casualty of war is truth then it's been a particularly bloody war.

So true.

bendertherobot

Pross wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

If the first casualty of war is truth then it's been a particularly bloody war.

This is the issue for me. I think both sides have accepted that they aren't going to change the minds of those who are reasonably educated and able to research things for themselves and so are concentrating on those who they can steer to their side by playing on their concerns and / or prejudices whether that's their pensions getting hit by an exit, the continued demise of the NHS if we stay or driving out the job stealing / benefit claiming immigrants by leaving.

The related issue is about how government and democracy work. There's such little understanding of what Parliament is, as opposed to Government, and how our MP's shape and channel democracy.

There's an interesting side issue as well about democracy. We know that it works/should work on a constituency level. We vote for our MP but, of course, that's on party lines. Then we expect that MP to represent our interests. The truth is that, by and large, that does not happen. That MP does what their party believes that their mandate supports. Suppose next week there is a majority of people voting out but a majority, on a constituency level, who vote to remain in. How does that individual constituency element deal with that? Will be an interesting little watch. I suspect that the issue will not arise but it's going to be a real melting point of cross party constituencies all having very different views from the constituency that may well be next door.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

You would think in the age of Google that this would be the best informed debate the country has ever had - certainly more so than 1975, as we have 41 more yrs of membership to look back on. For example I have been assuming it was 1974 for most of my posts, and only just Googled the actual date!

I don't think people care about facts, they have a deep seated emotional reason to be out. If you tried to remove their olive branch they would deny your facts or pick up another.

bendertherobot

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

You would think in the age of Google that this would be the best informed debate the country has ever had - certainly more so than 1975, as we have 41 more yrs of membership to look back on. For example I have been assuming it was 1974 for most of my posts, and only just Googled the actual date!

I don't think people care about facts, they have a deep seated emotional reason to be out. If you tried to remove their olive branch they would deny your facts or pick up another.

I did this with my godmother. She claimed Pontypridd was "full of immigrants." Nationality unclear, I assume eastern bloc. Current figures show 660 out of 33k. She then moved onto something else which I was able to clear up quite quickly. I then asked her what she thought of Ponty Lido (3 million EU funding) before finally giving up when she said she'd vote out because Sturgeon wanted in and she'd already tried to get Scotland out and this was hypocritical. She's a nice person but those deep seated "beliefs" are like the changing sands. Always in a different place but can't be washed away.

veronese68

Mr Goo wrote:

FYI. I work in construction industry. Basic rate tax payer. Secondary school education. Small house. Wife 2 children. 2 cats. Gold tench in a small pond. Therefore officially classified as Pleb in the eyes of the educated, self righteous and who love to talk down to those who dare to think about their communities and country rather than their portfolio.

You are the only one calling yourself a pleb. I only have a secondary school education, but I'm no pleb. I don't have a pond though and thankfully the cats are no more.
You do know if the economy takes a downturn it will have an impact on your community and the country? It will affect normal people that need a job to pay their mortgage more than it will the rich. I don't have a portfolio, I have a rather lowly job selling car parts, I need to work to pay for my family and house. I worry about how I'm going to afford to pay for the kids as they get older. My son wants to go to university and the fees scare the hell out of me. I just happen to live in Surrey which you seem to resent for some reason. The company I work for exports a lot into Europe, I fear for my job if we leave.
You talk about your doctor's surgery being full of immigrants. Do you realise if we manage to negotiate the same trade deals as Switzerland and Norway we will have to accept free movement of people from the EU? Do you know net migration from outside the EU was higher than from within last year, that figure is not affected by being in the EU. Do you know what percentage of the population is made up of immigrants?

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

You would think in the age of Google that this would be the best informed debate the country has ever had - certainly more so than 1975, as we have 41 more yrs of membership to look back on. For example I have been assuming it was 1974 for most of my posts, and only just Googled the actual date!

I don't think people care about facts, they have a deep seated emotional reason to be out. If you tried to remove their olive branch they would deny your facts or pick up another.

I did this with my godmother. She claimed Pontypridd was "full of immigrants." Nationality unclear, I assume eastern bloc. Current figures show 660 out of 33k. She then moved onto something else which I was able to clear up quite quickly. I then asked her what she thought of Ponty Lido (3 million EU funding) before finally giving up when she said she'd vote out because Sturgeon wanted in and she'd already tried to get Scotland out and this was hypocritical. She's a nice person but those deep seated "beliefs" are like the changing sands. Always in a different place but can't be washed away.

All so depressingly true.

kingstongraham

bendertherobot wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

You would think in the age of Google that this would be the best informed debate the country has ever had - certainly more so than 1975, as we have 41 more yrs of membership to look back on. For example I have been assuming it was 1974 for most of my posts, and only just Googled the actual date!

I don't think people care about facts, they have a deep seated emotional reason to be out. If you tried to remove their olive branch they would deny your facts or pick up another.

I did this with my godmother. She claimed Pontypridd was "full of immigrants." Nationality unclear, I assume eastern bloc. Current figures show 660 out of 33k. She then moved onto something else which I was able to clear up quite quickly. I then asked her what she thought of Ponty Lido (3 million EU funding) before finally giving up when she said she'd vote out because Sturgeon wanted in and she'd already tried to get Scotland out and this was hypocritical. She's a nice person but those deep seated "beliefs" are like the changing sands. Always in a different place but can't be washed away.

Relatives have said to me "But we remember what it was like before 1975". Seems pointless pointing out we're not going to bring back the swinging sixties.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Relatives have said to me "But we remember what it was like before 1975". Seems pointless pointing out we're not going to bring back the swinging sixties.

https://next.ft.com/content/e66852f0-32 ... ee5ffe5b5b

Economic history is clear. The UK’s growth of national income per head has been the fastest in the G7 since joining in 1973, having been the slowest between 1950 and 1973. EU membership has served Britain well and has not prevented domestic economic renewal.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

OK have just found figures from 24th September 2015 and the UK fishing industry is worth £861,000,000. Whilst that is important to the 11,800 people working in that industry it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. The UK economy is worth nearly £3,000,000,000,000, which I think is 0.03%.

I am presuming but, if you were to compare that 0.03% to the percentage from 1976 then you may be able to see the point being made.

I still don't get the fascination with the fishing industry but this is a great source of info
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02788/SN02788.pdf

Highlights are;
fastest decline was 1948-70 - 55%
slowest was 1975-95 - only 14%
1994-2004 - 43% decline

mrfpb

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Relatives have said to me "But we remember what it was like before 1975". Seems pointless pointing out we're not going to bring back the swinging sixties.

https://next.ft.com/content/e66852f0-32 ... ee5ffe5b5b

Economic history is clear. The UK’s growth of national income per head has been the fastest in the G7 since joining in 1973, having been the slowest between 1950 and 1973. EU membership has served Britain well and has not prevented domestic economic renewal.

Economic history is clear - 3 years after joining the EEC the UK economy had hit the rocks and we had to apply for an IMF bailout (like Greece after they joined the Euro)

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabi ... crisis.htm

mrfpb

So are we all clear on the "facts" of economic history?

bendertherobot

History is great. It teaches us so many things. Like what happened when some stuff happened. And that's the case from all sides. So we come back to predictions. What will it be like. History teaches us stuff. Then the future broadly ignores it.

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, I say impossible, every time I see something new I have a google. By and large I'm able to dismiss, clarify or contextualise it after doing some very basic research. So, a very recent example, an otherwise remainer wanted out on a single issue. That issue being that the accounts of the EU have NEVER been ratified. Quick google. Untrue, with some caveats. That was his out. That was his olive branch, a quick google and he would have thought again, or would he. That is true of both sides. But it's very easy to dispel the myths of the brexit camp with basic research. It's impossible to prove the consequences of either side because the conditions do not yet exist.

You would think in the age of Google that this would be the best informed debate the country has ever had - certainly more so than 1975, as we have 41 more yrs of membership to look back on. For example I have been assuming it was 1974 for most of my posts, and only just Googled the actual date!

I don't think people care about facts, they have a deep seated emotional reason to be out. If you tried to remove their olive branch they would deny your facts or pick up another.

I did this with my godmother. She claimed Pontypridd was "full of immigrants." Nationality unclear, I assume eastern bloc. Current figures show 660 out of 33k. She then moved onto something else which I was able to clear up quite quickly. I then asked her what she thought of Ponty Lido (3 million EU funding) before finally giving up when she said she'd vote out because Sturgeon wanted in and she'd already tried to get Scotland out and this was hypocritical. She's a nice person but those deep seated "beliefs" are like the changing sands. Always in a different place but can't be washed away.

I love the stat that more immigrants work in the NHS than use it.

rick_chasey

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Relatives have said to me "But we remember what it was like before 1975". Seems pointless pointing out we're not going to bring back the swinging sixties.

https://next.ft.com/content/e66852f0-32 ... ee5ffe5b5b

Economic history is clear. The UK’s growth of national income per head has been the fastest in the G7 since joining in 1973, having been the slowest between 1950 and 1973. EU membership has served Britain well and has not prevented domestic economic renewal.

Economic history is clear - 3 years after joining the EEC the UK economy had hit the rocks and we had to apply for an IMF bailout (like Greece after they joined the Euro)

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabi ... crisis.htm

Been alright since in the intervening 30 years though.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

So are we all clear on the "facts" of economic history?

I genuinely don't get what you mean by that post - could you explain

mrfpb

bendertherobot wrote:

History is great. It teaches us so many things. Like what happened when some stuff happened. And that's the case from all sides. So we come back to predictions. What will it be like. History teaches us stuff. Then the future broadly ignores it.

Lots of stuff happened and pinning down what event caused what consequence is always open for debate.

Eg the quarterly GDP figures that come out 3 weeks after the end of the quarter are a form of "prediction" of the final figure - which takes two years to establish. Hence Mark Carney talking about the UK suffering a "technical recession" - if there is a reported shrinkage of say.1% that could easily be revised to 0% or +.1% over the following two years.

Been alright since in the intervening 30 years though.

More likely down to the conditions imposed by the IMF and the radical reforms of the Thatcher years (in my opinion of course). Not a fan of Thatcher, but looking at the state of the economy before and after her stint is like night and day.

bendertherobot

mrfpb wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

History is great. It teaches us so many things. Like what happened when some stuff happened. And that's the case from all sides. So we come back to predictions. What will it be like. History teaches us stuff. Then the future broadly ignores it.

Lots of stuff happened and pinning down what event caused what consequence is always open for debate.

Eg the quarterly GDP figures that come out 3 weeks after the end of the quarter are a form of "prediction" of the final figure - which takes two years to establish. Hence Mark Carney talking about the UK suffering a "technical recession" - if there is a reported shrinkage of say.1% that could easily be revised to 0% or +.1% over the following two years.

Been alright since in the intervening 30 years though.

More likely down to the conditions imposed by the IMF and the radical reforms of the Thatcher years (in my opinion of course). Not a fan of Thatcher, but looking at the state of the economy before and after her stint is like night and day.

Yes. Debate is good. But it doesn't make for historical fact then, if that debate is debatable. And if it is then relying on it to predict the future is pointless.

Can someone answer this though, and this is really the one thing I just cannot pin down. We're going to continue to trade. Fine. I agree with that. Will there be better agreements? Whatever.

But, there seems to be this buzz that our trading will go nuclear. We're going to become a powerhouse. JCB and Dyson are shining examples of the industry that we have.

Can someone tell me a) how many more Dyson's are we going to sell and b) what other products will we be a) inventing or b) selling more of? I'm genuinely interested in that discussion and soundbites aside what is the hope based on?

mrfpb

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

So are we all clear on the "facts" of economic history?

I genuinely don't get what you mean by that post - could you explain

Well, me and Rick posted completely different conclusions of the effects on the UK economy of joining the EEC. His implied continual growth, mine implied catastrophe. We simply chose different historical sources to back up our arguments.