EU Referendum

[martin-s]

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.

Actually, adding VAT onto your bill made the playing field more level for UK companies. Cross-border supplies of digital goods and services would be really tough for the UK to compete on if the prices here were always going to be 20% higher than those from elsewhere.

 

[websaway]

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.

I personally think it's better to let you argue the figures. You are good at that.
You have not once to my knowledge approached the issue of sovereignty. You did once say not to mention the war, in which millions died to preserve it, but that was about it.

 

[websaway]

The Treasury 'grossly exaggerated' the impact of leaving the EU on Britain's finances, according to an academic review published today.

And in a damning verdict on George Osborne's approach to the referendum campaign, author Dr David Blake, a professor of Pension Economics at Cass Business School at City University London, accused the Treasury of becoming a 'propaganda machine' for the EU

Read the full article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...w-Cameron-Osborne-treating-like-children.html

 

[cannybagotudor]

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.

 

[Edwin]

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.

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.

 

[looks]

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

 

[Toonz]

Get over yourself. I'm empathetic, but I don't agree that asylum sob stories are relevant to the discussion about EU migration stats.

Sob stories are sad. Fact.

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".

 

[cannybagotudor]

Edwin:You put your point across perfectly, I'd likely have some respect for the government if they followed you method of delivery, however the video screenshot above clearly demonstrates their approach, you could not create a more fear based screenshot with the reputed loss in pension figure in red. In the end it's not long 'til we find out either way.

 

[Edwin]

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

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.

 

[Avano Ltd]

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.

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.

 

[websaway]

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.

Yes but at the beginning of the thread you were quoting the IFS and the like in your argument but this is what the IFS ( institute for fiscal studies ) have said about the black hole.


"what the IFS says: ‘If we turned out to have a 20-40 billion pound
hit to the public finances that would be a much smaller hit than
the effect of the 2008 recession, it would be below the
downgrades to the forecasts made by the OBR between the
budgets in 2011 and 2013. We have coped with those. In fact –
they are the Treasury themselves forecast that if we leave the
recession will be the shallowest since 1956. It is not Armageddon."


You want sensible discussion but seem to ignore what does not suite your argument which is that the country will fall apart on Brexit.

 

[websaway]

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.

Most economic modelling has found that a Brexit vote in the June 23 referendum would make little difference to Britain's economy, the study by the influential Cass Business School concluded.

It said the Government had ignored waves of research in favour of publishing 'highly prejudiced' reports warning the UK would be poorer by £4,300 per household by 2030 and be hit by an immediate recession.

And in a damning verdict on George Osborne's approach to the referendum campaign, author Dr David Blake, a professor of Pension Economics at Cass Business School at City University London, accused the Treasury of becoming a propaganda machine' for the EU.

 

[spiderspider]

I will now sum up this entire 117 page long thread with a few images:

 

[websaway]

I will now sum up this entire 117 page long thread with a few images:

View attachment 1185
View attachment 1186
View attachment 1187
View attachment 1188
View attachment 1189
View attachment 1190
View attachment 1191
View attachment 1192
View attachment 1193
View attachment 1194

Brilliant, thanks for the smiles.

 

[websaway]

So to balance the argument up a little.
Cameron came back from Brussels waving his "peace in our time" type agreement which was about as worthless as Chamberlain's, and we know what happened after that.

I do admit that in 1914 the public were told it would all be over by Christmas and of course it was not, it was far worse than that.

So we can't believe everything people say and there is uncertainty from both sides. The only certainty is that the Sovereignty that both these humongous events were to protect will be surrendered if we remain in the EU.

 

[gimpydog]

I think it depends on where the piper gets his wages.

theweek.co.uk

 

[martin-s]

That's a pretty sneery term if you don't mind me saying.

Not intended to trivialise, just 100% not relevant to this topic.

 

[gimpydog]

The government expects a negative economic impact from brexit

 

[BeachLife]

I think it depends on where the piper gets his wages.

theweek.co.uk

Indeed, and there are many more forecasts out there. Even some from the leave side show a "shallow" recession.

Only one however, to my knowledge, has forecast a positive effect, and that is the one shown, by "Economists for Brexit". They are I assume, showing how they will fund the unicorns, along with the NHS, CAP, scientific funding, schools, tariffs etc.

How much of a drop in GDP in equivalent to the saving in EU contributions? I recall 0.6%, but that is probably disputed also.

I hope the sovereignty (or should we call it nostalgia) is worth it, because we and our children will be paying heavily for it.

 

[Edwin]

How much of a drop in GDP in equivalent to the saving in EU contributions? I recall 0.6%, but that is probably disputed also

0.5% of GDP is the equivalent of the net EU contribution, based on the 2014/15 GDP figure.

Note that some of the more "scary" forecasts take into account the compounding effect over a number of years.

For example, if brexit knocks 0.5% a year off GDP then over a decade that adds up to about 5% difference vs where GDP "should be" by then, like this: (99.5^10)/(100^10)=0.9511...