EU Referendum

[Edwin]

How can you not become, as you call it, an armchair economist, when so much of the emphasis is placed on economic decisions. By the way 5 past chancellors are backing Brexit.

I think you've got the stat the wrong way around. There are 7 living Chancellors and former Chancellors of the Exchequer.

They break down as follows:

BACK "LEAVE"
- Norman Lamont*
- Nigel Lawson

(* humiliated by "Black Wednesday" when Britain was forced out of the ERM)

BACK "REMAIN"
- Kenneth Clarke
- John Major
- Gordon Brown
- Alistair Darling
- George Osborne

 

[bonusmedia]

Yes only people with economy degrees are allowed to discuss this. Next.

Not at all - but those without should not presume they know better

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[RobM]

We can all quote things from the internet. This is a *discussion*. If someone has a different opinion to yours you don't have to respond with thinly veiled vitriol - debate it or ignore it.

 

[bonusmedia]

We can all quote things from the internet. This is a *discussion*. If someone has a different opinion to yours you don't have to respond with thinly veiled vitriol - debate it or ignore it.

Made me smile.

I am trying to debate. I think your point was "Yes only people with economy degrees are allowed to discuss this. Next." I don't think this responds to my point at all, you're simply trying to shut me down. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Again, my question is how do those who make sweeping statements about the future after Brexit have such confidence, when they contradict those who will actually make the investment decisions?

It's very difficult to support a point without citing sources or quoting others.

 

[Edwin]

BTW, if you've not been following the subject that closely, here are how all the still-living leaders and former leaders of the three main political parties stand on "Brexit"...

CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADERS

BACK REMAIN
John Major, William Hague, David Cameron

BACK LEAVE
Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Howard

-----------------

LABOUR PARTY LEADERS

BACK REMAIN
Neil Kinnock, Margaret Beckett, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn

BACK LEAVE
(nobody)

-----------------

LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERS

BACK REMAIN
David Steel, Robert Maclennan, Paddy Ashdown, Menzies Campbell, Vincent Cable, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron

BACK LEAVE
(nobody)

 

[websaway]

BTW, if you've not been following the subject that closely, here are how all the still-living leaders and former leaders of the three main political parties stand on "Brexit"...

CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADERS

BACK REMAIN
John Major, William Hague, David Cameron

BACK LEAVE
Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Howard

-----------------

LABOUR PARTY LEADERS

BACK REMAIN
Neil Kinnock, Margaret Beckett, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn

BACK LEAVE
(nobody)

-----------------

LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERS

BACK REMAIN
David Steel, Robert Maclennan, Paddy Ashdown, Menzies Campbell, Vincent Cable, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron

BACK LEAVE
(nobody)

We would need to look into their financial interests now and what they would lose by a Brexit.

 

[RobM]

Made me smile.

I am trying to debate. I think your point was "Yes only people with economy degrees are allowed to discuss this. Next." I don't think this responds to my point at all, you're simply trying to shut me down. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Again, my question is how do those who make sweeping statements about the future after Brexit have such confidence, when they contradict those who will actually make the investment decisions?

It's very difficult to support a point without citing sources or quoting others.

I know what a strawman argument is but thanks for the link. I don't need to 'shut you down' I was just pointing out that you suggested people with an opinion were 'armchair economists' who don't know enough and therefore shouldn't state their opinions as others knew more. A strawman argument, by the way, would be IF you hadn't made your post and I suggested you did and then argued against it. I could be childish and post a link explaining what an argument is called when you accuse someone of the wrong type of argument but I wont

Anyway back to the discussion - a lot of people you have mentioned above Edwin are people that are currently benefitting (personally) from financial restitution or expect to benefit (personally) from financial restitution in the future. I would be more inclined to look at the countries now in the EU (Malta isn't the only one) who weren't at the beginning - then look at them now and how they've benefitted/not benefitted from the move. It doesn't paint a pretty picture with the only people in those countries who would vote remain being exactly the same people benefitting personally from being in. If UK votes out I expect a lot of countries will follow.

 

[Toonz]

We would need to look into their financial interests now and what they would lose by a Brexit.

Hold on, you can't have it both ways. You were bragging about having 5 ex-Chancellors a minute ago. Not only was that claim wrong, you're now being selective in how you judge them.

 

[Edwin]

If UK votes out I expect a lot of countries will follow.

If that's really the case, the countries most keen to preserve the EU will be forced to make the UK pay very, very dearly for having left, out of the necessity to prevent a more widespread exodus.

For example, there will be elections in France next year, and there's a great deal of worry that the Front National will do extremely well, perhaps even become the largest party. You could imagine the French government pushing to "hurt" Britain in the interim to dampen home-grown enthusiasm for a referendum aimed at a possible "Frexit".

 

[RobM]

Surely though if you have to threaten or force someone to stay there's something wrong. Hypothetically, if UK left and then other countries wanted to follow - why would these countries want to - they surely would only want to follow because they'd seen that leaving was something that benefitted the UK? If it didn't they would want to stay and could have a good laugh at the UK's misfortune. If the EU are convinced that not being part of it is so bad why do they worry that MORE THAN ONE country would leave? It's just pure extortion if that's the case. ie they know it's good for countries that leave but it benefits others.

 

[RobM]

I really don't subscribe to the theory that 'UK should stay in or else... we'll make them sorry.' That's not an argument. It has never worked in the past.

 

[Toonz]

Surely though if you have to threaten or force someone to stay there's something wrong. Hypothetically, if UK left and then other countries wanted to follow - why would these countries want to - they surely would only want to follow because they'd seen that leaving was something that benefitted the UK? If it didn't they would want to stay and could have a good laugh at the UK's misfortune. If the EU are convinced that not being part of it is so bad why do they worry that MORE THAN ONE country would leave? It's just pure extortion if that's the case. ie they know it's good for countries that leave but it benefits others.

You may be correct in your assessment here Rob, but the fact remains that it's very much in the EU's interest (indeed its survival may depend on it) to demonstrate very clearly that life is better inside the EU than outside. And that doesn't bode well for Britain. That's not me defending them, nor is it a defeatist attitude. It's just about facing politics as it is rather than as we'd like it to be.

 

[RobM]

I guess we'll have to wait for their demonstration then

 

[websaway]

Hold on, you can't have it both ways. You were bragging about having 5 ex-Chancellors a minute ago. Not only was that claim wrong, you're now being selective in how you judge them.

Did I say 5 my mistake I mean two and both extremely distinguished.

 

[websaway]

Let's keep this simple. The stay campaign is conjecture about the economic affects of leaving. The leave campaign is not about conjecture it's about facts, facts about immigration and sovereignty.

 

[websaway]

It's easy to lose sight of what's happening when we concentrate on what MIGHT be. It's far better to look at what we actually know WILL be. So the argument should really be about can we cope with unknown amounts of people both good and bad coming into our country. If we can then let's to told how. We are losing our sovereignty and our freedom to create our own laws and moving away from the democracy we created. Can we live with that and how do we do that. This argument should not be about economics, it's a red herring.

 

[Toonz]

I guess we'll have to wait for their demonstration then

Guess we will.

 

[Edwin]

The leaders of 10 trade unions, representing 6 million workers, urge their members to vote "Remain"...

“Despite words to the contrary from figures like Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove, the Tories would negotiate our exit and, we believe, would negotiate away our rights. We simply do not trust this government if they are presented with an unrestricted, unchecked opportunity to attack our current working rights.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ers-call-on-6m-members-to-vote-against-brexit

I suppose they'll be suspected of ulterior motives next!

In this action, they're joining the TUC (Britain's largest trade union) who, in February this year, laid out a clear case for staying in the EU in order to protect workers' rights.
https://www.tuc.org.uk/international-issues/europe/employment-and-social-policy/eu-referendum/tuc-report-outlines-workers’

The TUC white paper
https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/UK employment rights and the EU_0.pdf

More background from one of the TUC blogs
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2016/04/best-best-possible-brexits-rather-isnt/

 

[RobM]

'...the 10 trade union leaders said they were clear that the social and cultural benefits of remaining in the EU far outweigh any advantages of leaving, while acknowledging it needs to change and “move away from a path of austerity”.

Oh does Europe need to change? Has it ever? Has anyone ever changed any policy or law decided there? Well maybe in the future.

 

[RobM]

Just an aside Edwin - how are you editing your post? Is there an option staring me in the face that I haven't seen?