EU Referendum

[martin-s]

It's THE thing to the government. And I explained very clearly why it has to be. It looks like you didn't actually read my post.

Read it, but don't agree.

 

[gimpydog]

Gimpy, you say weather forecasts are often wrong. That's a nice imprecise word that - "often". Let's cut to the chase. Are meteorological forecasts, let's say for 48 hours from now, more often right, or more often wrong?

I would say, without checking first, that, on that period, they are very accurate & I'll tell you why;
they can see it coming & have a relatively small margin for error.

Push the horizon out to fourteen days & they are completely buggered.

(I would recommend you read this Met Office link on accuracy rates, but presumably you'd accuse them of being self-interested and me of trawling Google so here's one on weather verification where you can compare the forecasts they made to the actual weather and temperature.)

Read my words again. I wasn't accusing them, or you, of anything.

 

[gimpydog]

What ever happened to Lord Rose, the chairman of the 'remain' campaign?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Haven't seen him in weeks. I'm beginning to get worried

 

[websaway]

From a government's point of view, everything starts from the economy. It has to. This may seem distasteful or uncaring, but it reflects the real world because the economy pays for the NHS. It pays for housing. It pays for benefits. It pays for absolutely everything the government spends money on.

That's why the economic argument isn't just "another thing". It's THE thing, when it comes to what the government will or will not be able to do for workers, the unemployed, farmers, hospitals, pensioners, business owners, etc. If Brexit tanks the economy, you can wave goodbye to any more money for the NHS, for compensating farmers for the loss of their EU subsidies, for support for businesses facing increased tariffs, for anything at all. That so-called "£10 billion surplus" would be gone in the blink of an eye if GDP drops even a hair.

So it's fine to argue (as Nigel Farage has) "Quality of life is more important than GDP." (though it's probably not a good idea to laugh about it like he seems to) But it's absolutely not ok to ignore the negative consequences of that statement as well as the positive, or duck the thorny issue of the economic impact entirely!

If you are saying "I categorically don't care if Brexit hurts the economy, having thought through exactly what that would entail carefully, because X, Y or Z", then fine. That reasoning, made with eyes wide open and full knowledge, is completely legitimate. It's a "position". It shows what you value, what you place the most importance on. And what you therefore base your decision on. Just realise that X, Y or Z other issue won't save the economy.

But if you are saying "Brexit absolutely won't hurt the economy because of bogus 'reason' I just plucked out of thin air." Well, then, that's not fine at all. That's irresponsible in the extreme. That's gambling with everyone's future to chase unicorns.

It is also worth remembering at all times that a government has a much, much higher obligation than any individual citizen. It simply can't stop paying for hospitals, schools, road repairs, benefits, pensions, etc. etc. etc. And so it has to seek to protect the economic position of the country.

Individuals, on the other hand, have comparative luxury: you can take a pay cut or change your lifestyle ("live within your means") if you value other things more than mere money. But a country is like a nest of baby birds, always chirping, always hungry. Those beaks are opening and shutting, gulping down every penny you can find, and it's never, ever enough.

So it's important to understand WHY the government bangs the economy drum until its hands bleed. It's because if the economy fails, everything the government has to and wants to do risks failing too.

Take a moment to check just how little GDP had to drop by to throw us into the last few recessions. It's a tiny amount, a couple of % or so, yet it's the difference between boom times and millions on the dole. Why? Because of those chirping birds: everything the government can get its hands on is already spent, is needed somewhere. There is practically no slack in the system at all (this isn't exclusive to the UK). So what may at face value seem a "tiny" change in percentage terms has diabolic knock-on consequences.

Again, that's a huge difference between a country and a person. Most people are fortunate enough (not all, granted) to be able to ride out a drop of a couple of % in their income. Many wouldn't even notice it, in practical terms. But for a country, that's the bugle call signalling the start of the next recession.

From a governments point of view , everything starts with the people.

You are overplaying the lay it on thick card but look, If as you say leaving the EU is such a devastating idea, why did Cameron say last year that he would leave if he did not get reform, if as you say leaving is simply inconceivable, why did the prime minister say he would leave ?

 

[websaway]

I have hired many expert lawyers...they may work for either side, but when they have a choice they generally pick the side that makes sense

I think you misunderstood my point, but no matter.

 

[dougs]

I appreciate you are not trying to change others views and this is your position. But
Strong economy,...yes you can do lot's with the NHs, education, not sure what the etc, etc,etc. is but it can't be immigration and sovereignty. This is not a general election, if it was I would support your view 100%. It's a referendum and more than the economy for most people is a consideration.

I know it is, but the economy drives everything ...like it or not

 

[Edwin]

You are overplaying the lay it on thick card but look, If as you say leaving the EU is such a devastating idea, why did Cameron say last year that he would leave if he did not get reform, if as you say leaving is simply inconceivable, why did the prime minister say he would leave ?

But he did get reform since then! A number of reforms. Some will activate automatically as soon as a "Remain" vote is declared, others will be ratified in the weeks and months afterwards. You may not believe the reforms he obtained were "sufficient", but it is incorrect to say that he didn't get them.

Here's the timeline...

November 2015 (and earlier): Cameron makes a threat in the run-up to a protracted negotiation that he might possibly join the "Leave" camp unless he secured reforms from the EU (if you look at what he said back then, you'll see it was relatively nuanced and fit easily into what one might consider the "opening salvo" of a negotiation process)
Between November 2015 and February 2016: Negotiations with the EU aimed at securing a range of reforms
19 February 2016: the EU agree a number of reforms http://docs.dpaq.de/10395-0216-euco-conclusions.pdf that Cameron feel are sufficient to keep him in the "Remain" camp.

His behaviour has been entirely logical and consistent. He set out his position pre-negotiation, warned what might happen if he didn't get what he wanted, got (most of) what he was after, and moderated his new position accordingly based on what he'd already said he'd do.

 

[websaway]

But he did get reform since then! A number of reforms. Some will activate automatically as soon as a "Remain" vote is declared, others will be ratified in the weeks and months afterwards. You may not believe the reforms he obtained were "sufficient", but it is incorrect to say that he didn't get them.

Here's the timeline...

November 2015 (and earlier): Cameron makes a threat in the run-up to a protracted negotiation that he might possibly join the "Leave" camp unless he secured reforms from the EU (if you look at what he said back then, you'll see it was relatively nuanced and fit easily into what one might consider the "opening salvo" of a negotiation process)
Between November 2015 and February 2016: Negotiations with the EU aimed at securing a range of reforms
19 February 2016: the EU agree a number of reforms http://docs.dpaq.de/10395-0216-euco-conclusions.pdf that Cameron feel are sufficient to keep him in the "Remain" camp.

His behaviour has been entirely logical and consistent. He set out his position pre-negotiation, warned what might happen if he didn't get what he wanted, got (most of) what he was after, and moderated his new position accordingly based on what he'd already said he'd do.

So say if he had not got reform ? How could he possibly even court the position of leaving if the consequences will be as severe as you predict.

 

[websaway]

I know it is, but the economy drives everything ...like it or not

Let them eat cake.

 

[Edwin]

A different group of "independent economists"/"vested interests" (delete to fit your own prejudices) issued their Brexit prediction today.

Sterling could fall by 30% and the stock market by 20% if the UK should leave the European Union, according to a stark assessment from an award-winning team of independent economic analysts.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/11/eu-vote-remain-leave-sterling-markets

And this in-depth interview with Cameron is worth a read. A flavour...

One way or another, David Cameron will soon be a history man. In 12 days’ time, he will have pulled off his great gamble, prevailed in one of the most significant – and vicious – political contests in the life of this nation and won the referendum, or Britain’s membership of the European Union will be toast and he with it, leaving future historians to debate why a previously skilled and supple leader made such a catastrophic mistake.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ron-brexit-eu-referendum-listen-jeremy-corbyn

 

[Edwin]

Let them eat cake.

FYI, I'm not going to be trying to counter your posts anymore - it's just too numbingly exhausting. I'll still be participating in this thread. I hope we can still keep things civil.

 

[websaway]

But he did get reform since then! A number of reforms. Some will activate automatically as soon as a "Remain" vote is declared, others will be ratified in the weeks and months afterwards. You may not believe the reforms he obtained were "sufficient", but it is incorrect to say that he didn't get them.

Here's the timeline...

November 2015 (and earlier): Cameron makes a threat in the run-up to a protracted negotiation that he might possibly join the "Leave" camp unless he secured reforms from the EU (if you look at what he said back then, you'll see it was relatively nuanced and fit easily into what one might consider the "opening salvo" of a negotiation process)
Between November 2015 and February 2016: Negotiations with the EU aimed at securing a range of reforms
19 February 2016: the EU agree a number of reforms http://docs.dpaq.de/10395-0216-euco-conclusions.pdf that Cameron feel are sufficient to keep him in the "Remain" camp.

His behaviour has been entirely logical and consistent. He set out his position pre-negotiation, warned what might happen if he didn't get what he wanted, got (most of) what he was after, and moderated his new position accordingly based on what he'd already said he'd do.

This is your spin on it, and if it were anywhere near accurate it would appear that he should have told the country that it was bluff because he seems to have shot himself in the foot, as most people think when he said the UK could cope quite well outside the EU he meant it, as you would when the prime minister ( an expert ) speaks.

 

[websaway]

FYI, I'm not going to be trying to counter your posts anymore - it's just too numbingly exhausting. I'll still be participating in this thread. I hope we can still keep things civil.

No problem Edwin I assume it's checkmate.

 

[Edwin]

"The UK’s air pollution crisis would get worse if the country votes to leave the European Union, according to a new poll of environment professionals.

The poll, of almost 1,200 professionals, found that 48% thought standards for UK air quality would get worse if the UK left the EU, with just 4% expecting they would improve and 42% saying they would stay the same."
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...increase-uks-air-pollution-crisis-say-experts

 

[martin-s]

But he did get reform since then! A number of reforms. Some will activate automatically as soon as a "Remain" vote is declared, others will be ratified in the weeks and months afterwards. You may not believe the reforms he obtained were "sufficient", but it is incorrect to say that he didn't get them.

The only thing that Cameron's reforms achieved is evidential proof of how little the EU is willing to negotiate on its planned direction.

The changes Cameron came back with are meagre at best - and are open to being watered down even further. Perhaps even likely to be.

The whole fiasco was the perfect example of why being in Europe doesn't give us significant voice and influence over change that we are being told it does. Generally speaking, most of Europe want Europe to go in a different direction than we do.

Even the Remainers.

Other European countries hated even giving us the little ground that they did. Why should the troublemakers be given a special deal?

So why the lack of foresight? Why stay in a relationship that's bad for us and continues to get worse? Why compound the problem? Because it's too scary or difficult to leave?

If you accept the direction that Europe is going in, and our lack of power to change that, because that's what the other members of this democracy want, surely in a sane man's mind, surely the only option is leave.

If you take the current direction towards a federal Europe to its ultimate conclusion, the rich countries must subsidise the poor, as they do in any society.

Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Spain and to a lesser extent the Netherlands and Belgium are already net contributors to the likes of Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc. Each of whom gets 3x or more from the EU what they put in.

But for the EU project to "work", it must be increasingly so. And in order to do that, the EU must increasingly legislate over its members. Budget approvals, legal supremacy, the works.

Being so fearful about the risk of a dip in the economy that you can't see the wood for the trees is, to me, putting the cart in front of the horse.

Quite simply, it's bonkers.

 

[martin-s]

Here's the timeline...

Nuanced isn't the word. Here's a cynic's view of the timeline:

• Started talking to other countries about what they would and wouldn't consider as red lines. Pissed lots of them off by not having clear negotiation objectives, but couldn't do that because couldn't afford egg on face.
• Pulled together a number of very weak requirements.
• Negotiated his way to a more and more watered down version of each goal, just enough so that he could maintain a remain position in the referendum.
• Talked up what a massive result it was and how successful he'd been, while most commentators sniggered behind him.
• Rewrote history about his original intentions
• Now claims that leaving the EU is a completely foolhardy idea, the road to financial ruin and war on the continent.

 

[Edwin]

If you take the current direction towards a federal Europe to its ultimate conclusion, the rich countries must subsidise the poor, as they do in any society.

"Does Britain face extra EU costs?
The claim: Britain's contribution to the EU will have to increase because the EU is "living beyond its means" and the European Parliament has asked for more money to spend on dealing with the migrant crisis. The UK will also be liable for additional payments to bail out eurozone countries.

Reality Check verdict: The UK has a veto on the overall size of the EU budget and it's already been agreed that non-eurozone countries won't have to pay for future eurozone bailouts."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36462016

(There's a lot more detail at the link - I just posted the summary above)

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

"Will the UK pay for future Eurozone bailouts?
The claim: The Vote Leave campaign is claiming that "UK taxpayers will keep paying for the huge bills caused by the euro crisis" and that "these bills will only increase".

Reality Check verdict: The UK will not pay for future eurozone bailouts. This has already been agreed by EU leaders. In addition, the UK-EU deal from February, which will be implemented if the UK votes to stay in the EU, reinforces this and states that the UK would be reimbursed if the general EU budget is used for the cost of the eurozone crisis."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36456277

(ditto)

 

[martin-s]

The EU budget increases every year, despite UK opposition. And that's before you bring the migration crisis into play.

But you're just continuing to play the same single card all the time.

Money, money, money.

Are you an ABBA fan?

 

[Edwin]

The EU budget increases every year, despite UK opposition. And that's before you bring the migration crisis into play.

The EU budget for 2014-2020 has already been agreed, and is lower than the previous period by nearly £29 billion. This was widely reported back in 2013 when it was negotiated.

 

[martin-s]

You only reply to the bits you want to