By opting to leave we would no longer be in the EU
Spot on - that's why I'm only engaging now with those who seem open to reason, even if we have completely opposing views.
It's a shame really, because this thread has been truly fascinating thanks to some fantastic input from both camps, which has encouraged me to learn a huge amount more about the big decision we all face.
This part is correct
This is not a general election.
Really sounds like you put yourself in their shoes with that text book response.
Yeah, coming from a war torn country I'd always look to fill in the correct asylum seeking forms at my local post-office too, before ultimately trying to get my family the hell out of danger and into safety.
I use hostgator and thanks to the EU I get 20% added to my bills which I never did before, it's like a vacuum for money with nothing in return.
Spot on - that's why I'm only engaging now with those who seem open to reason, even if we have completely opposing views.
It's a shame really, because this thread has been truly fascinating thanks to some fantastic input from both camps, which has encouraged me to learn a huge amount more about the big decision we all face.
The main reason Remain's core argument on the economy sounds negative should be obvious if you think about what actually happens after a Remain vote: nothing.
So you have a situation where you have £X coming in, and after a vote to keep the status quo, well you will still have £X coming in because Friday's the same as Thursday.
But it's well worth pointing out (if the data supports it) the notion that if you vote not to keep the status quo then £X will fall to £Y, where £Y is much smaller than £X.
Is that "negative"? Only in the sense that pointing out the removal of something is a "subtraction"
It will take years and years (some estimates suggest decades) to fully and comprehensively implement a brexit. It takes no time at all to implement Remain because there's nothing to implement.
It doesn't sound negative, it is negative, cuts to pensions if we leave, I'd love to see what facts that is based on. I know you do not make these statements, your argument is valid, things remain as they are,however the government cannot predict that pensions will go down, indeed the reverse is as likely to happen,it is these lies which will work against the governments tactics. You are also correct, if people vote leave, it will take years to implement.
Get over yourself. I'm empathetic, but I don't agree that asylum sob stories are relevant to the discussion about EU migration stats.
I appreciate your facts - decisions should be based as much on facts as possible. But dismissing the original poster's point as "sob stories"? That's a pretty sneery term if you don't mind me saying. I hear it a lot in instances where it's clearly intended to trivialise, ie. bat away, stories of other people's enormous suffering. (When I hear it from my family, I know it won't be long before I can expect to hear "do-gooder" and "bleeding heart liberals" .) Just saying. It doesn't exactly scream "empathy".Sob stories are sad. Fact.
I don't actually believe that statement, if we didn't have a huge trade deficit, no debt and a manufacturing base we would be fine, unfortunately that's not the case.The main reason Remain's core argument on the economy sounds negative should be obvious if you think about what actually happens after a Remain vote: nothing.
So you have a situation where you have £X coming in, and after a vote to keep the status quo, well you will still have £X coming in because Friday's the same as Thursday.
But it's well worth pointing out (if the data supports it) the notion that if you vote not to keep the status quo then £X will fall to £Y, where £Y is much smaller than £X.
Is that "negative"? Only in the sense that pointing out the removal of something is a "subtraction"
It will take years and years (some estimates suggest decades) to fully and comprehensively implement a brexit. It takes no time at all to implement Remain because there's nothing to implement.
The government expects a negative economic impact from brexit (there is a huge stack of forecasts from all sorts of "expert" bodies, all of which signpost a negative impact to a greater or lesser degree.)
The government are already engaged in cutbacks ie their ongoing austerity drive. (This is not the moment to debate their manifesto.)
So it is logical for them to advance the view that, should the economic forecasts pan out, they will be forced to find further ways to make savings since Brexit will introduce additional costs that haven't been costed into the government's spending plans for the next few years. And pensions could be one such mechanism since they cost the country over £150 billion a year.
It is possible that the economic fears may turn out to be overblown, but it would be foolhardy in the extreme for the government to shut its eyes and leap into the unknown when a huge preponderance of evidence suggests a very hard landing.
The other tricky thing is that when you take a long term view (20-30 years out) the economy is likely to grow both under Leave and under Remain. But there would still be a substantial gap between the two positions - and every shortfall has to be made up somewhere since things like pensions are also calculated over a long timeframe for the purpose of establishing what they will cost the country.
The chancellor can rescind the triple lock if need be. It's a vote losing and maybe even election losing move, but he certainly has the ability to do so. And if the time comes when he has to find more money, that's one choice open to him.
Why might he choose to do something that's bound to cost votes? Because he's been cornered by a situation in which there would simply be no good choices left.
If the brakes fail on a car going along a mountain road, do you crash into the rocky cliff face to stop yourself, or plunge over the edge? That's the kind of lose-lose choice I'm talking about.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.