EU Referendum

[dougs]

I think after talking the markets down and exaggerating the position his days are numbered. Don't forget you are predecting financial mayhem, markets tumbling and end to life as we know it.

Although below Paul Johnson of the IFS, who you were a great believer in before does not agree with you.

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.




What if the more pessimistic predictions turned our right if we stayed in and 1000,000 people come to England , Not Scotland , Not Wales, to England every 3 or 4 years. And on top of that millions more come to Europe because Turkey are sending them as a punishment for not letting them join the EU until the year 3000. And if Greece bombs again and is joined by Italy and if most EU states decide to close their borders to everyone so all new arrivals can only go to Germany, and if the far right gain control of Germany because Merkel simply cannot hold on to power because of the mess she caused and if EU cannot get rid of the heads of it's government because it is not democratic and the whole thing is in turmoil .

Would you still want to press on because certain institutions get generous funding from the EU that they probably would not get the UK electorate to agree to.

We have all got our own reasons to leave or stay, it's just some are more forthright than others at admitting what they are.
My reasons are sovereignty.

Sovereignty is fine, but lets not get muddled up with the others I think economically ( as do many others ) it is better for the UK and I am not a believer in sovereignty....hence easy decision for me.

Accpeting sovereignty but that with it comes a potential big hit economically is also fine

 

[BREWSTERS]

It is starting....

The markets and experts said:

if we leave the share prices will drop
the pound and the euro will drop
money will head for stability - gold and the dollar
uk interest rates on international markets will go up

All are happening as we speak

So wether you want in or out this is the reallity that is now happening and will continue

If UK interest rates go up then we have less cash to spend on the NHS, investment etc etc etc

Simply the markets said this is what they would do and it is what they are now doing.

So it really does not matter what we think will happen in the state of an exit, the markets and the experts are dictating the game.

Doug

Who controls the markets?
The banks are all in favour of remain...US banks have been funding the remain camp. Good tool to put the frighteners on people in the run up to the vote.

 

[BeachLife]

Open up the file and you will see the 4 possibilities

On thing the above doesn't refer to specifically, rather than just stating "allow free movement", is the Schengen area, which becoming a member of the EEA or EFTA would also most likely entail. This would result in less control of immigration than we currently have, as we are currently opted out. A bilateral Treaty would not necessarily require this, but would require Visa free access to the UK from the EU.

 

[Avano Ltd]

I would suggest people vote with ones conscience

I have read back a good few pages that seems to be regurgitated from previous pages and one thing I find very funny is that people quoting organisations that are funding solely by eu grants is not going to persuade me to remain( if you would like to submit a FOIA), we are not the BBC.

67% leave according to the poll on this forum, that's the largest margin i have seen on any forum i visit.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Sovereignty is fine, but lets not get muddled up with the others I think economically ( as do many others ) it is better for the UK and I am not a believer in sovereignty....

Don't believe in sovereignty? Don't believe in being able to make, change or repeal the laws of your own country? That's crazy to me.

""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety (money), deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Its incorrect on the WTO option.

Trade tariffs are set by the countries, and could be non-existant. They isn't always a need for tariffs under the WTO options.

Correct.

It also omits 'ability to self govern'.

Also, there is a 5th option - to set up individual agreements. Why should that be so difficult? We already have historical import/export data by commodity code and country. As the fifth largest economy in the world, don't you think we are capable without the EU?

 

[websaway]

It is starting....

The markets and experts said:

if we leave the share prices will drop
the pound and the euro will drop
money will head for stability - gold and the dollar
uk interest rates on international markets will go up

All are happening as we speak

So wether you want in or out this is the reallity that is now happening and will continue

If UK interest rates go up then we have less cash to spend on the NHS, investment etc etc etc

Simply the markets said this is what they would do and it is what they are now doing.

So it really does not matter what we think will happen in the state of an exit, the markets and the experts are dictating the game.

Doug

Markets are up this morning.

 

[Edwin]

The British Medical Journal weighs in on the referendum...

Why doctors should vote to remain in the EU on 23 June
Thursday 23 June is a momentous day for the UK: voters will decide whether we should leave or remain in the European Union. In a break with tradition we, on behalf of The BMJ, have decided to come out and state our considered view that the UK should remain in the EU.

Some readers may wonder why The BMJ is intervening in a political debate. We think this issue transcends politics and has such huge ramifications for health and society that it is important to state our case.

The BMJ is in good company. Over the past few months a slew of health experts have come out on the remain side. These include Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England; Paul Nurse, chief executive of the Francis Crick Institute; Simon Wessely, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists; and just last week, with a change of heart, Sarah Wollaston, chair of the parliamentary select committee on health. In a “call for views” organised by the Royal College of Physicians the opinions were overwhelmingly in favour of staying in. In fact, we realised that we could not name one prominent national medical, research, or health organisation that has sided with Brexit.

http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i3302

 

[websaway]

I would like to ask the Leave camp whether you would still vote Leave if you knew that, after a Brexit, we were still going to have to continue with free movement as part of a trade deal, in other words, immigration to the UK would remain "uncontrolled".

(Don't say it won't. This is a "what if" question )

Then it would be between Parliament and the people and the people would have to decide through the ballot box.

 

[websaway]

The British Medical Journal weighs in on the referendum...




http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i3302

Doctors might still want to retain sovereignty.
I think if there had been this discussion before we went to war with Germany most projections would affect people in different ways. But retaining our freedom and self determination was more important. The consequences here of course are nothing like that occasion but what is being protected is the same "British Sovereignty "

I think if someone says they don't believe in sovereignty on the remain side ,their opinions are as valid to the argument as a racist on the leave side.

 

[websaway]

I think if someone says they don't believe in sovereignty on the remain side ,their opinions are as valid to the argument as a self confessed racist on the leave side.

 

[websaway]

A few more warnings, all from the last day or so.

Nicola Sturgeon warns of Brexit 'right-wing Tory takeover'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36533796

Brexit would leave UK short of workers, warns Manpower
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-would-leave-uk-short-of-workers-warns-manpower-qzf86m0wz

Daunt [boss of Waterstones bookshops] warns of job losses if irresponsible Brexit prevails
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/waterstones-forced-axe-jobs-if-uk-brexits-333676

Central Bank warns of ‘material’ Brexit risks to Irish financial firms
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...exit-risks-to-irish-financial-firms-1.2684150

ACI Worldwide warns of UK Brexit consequences to fintech industry
https://www.finextra.com/newsarticl...arns-of-disastrous-consequences-for-uk-brexit

Morgan Stanley Warns About 1,000 Jobs Relocation on Brexit
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/220386/morgan-stanley-warns-about-1000-jobs-relocation-on-brexit

Brexit could leave Welsh rural communities in poverty, warns FUW President
http://www.farminguk.com/News/Brexi...ies-in-poverty-warns-FUW-President_42107.html

Axa CEO Warns There’s an ‘Extremely High’ Probability of Brexit
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ere-s-an-extremely-high-probability-of-brexit

There are similar warnings every single day if you keep an eye open for them. And when the number of independent (of each other) organisations and companies saying the same thing reaches the hundreds and then the thousands, it's impossible to make a credible case that they're all somehow in on a massive conspiracy together.

BTW, if you take the Morgan Stanley comment alone, 1,000 financial industry jobs moved abroad would drain well over £100 million a year out of the UK economy (salaries, bonuses and benefits not being paid locally) with consequent knock-on loss of corporate and personal tax revenues. They're also only the latest in a long line of city firms to warn they will need to move significant staff to a EU base if brexit occurs.

All these are based on self interest. Not on the interests of the bigoted lady Gordon Brown met and we all know how compassionate he was to her reservations on where the UK was going.

 

[Edwin]

Vote Leave have officially admitted that 2 years' worth of negotiations will take 4 years, even if the plan they are advocating is followed. Down towards the bottom of the article, it's clear they're relying on handwavium to cover the gap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36534802

It's like a sky-diver saying "trust me, I can make a fantastic parachute in only 30 seconds" when they're going to impact the ground 15 seconds later.

Following on from Priti Patel's admission yesterday that their sums don't add up at all, it's a pretty damning indictment of their position.

 

[Edwin]

I can understand the Leave camp's concerns about immigration. I happen to find those concerns overblown, and some of the stats they are using are very wobbly, but I can at least see where they are coming from. It's clear that relations with the rest of the EU would be significantly more harmonious if something could be done to address the biggest immigration issues, and there are future uncertainties (such as Turkey's possible eventual accession) that will need to be handled with kid gloves.

Ditto on sovereignty - the UK is much less beholden to the EU than some of the wilder Vote Leave rhetoric suggests, but it definitely does have to toe the EU line on a lot of things. Again, I see that and get it.

Neither factor is persuasive enough (for me) to sway me into the "Leave" camp, but they're both "valid concerns" and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. As evidenced by this thread, a lot of people weigh these issues more highly than I do and are consequently going to vote "Leave". And that's fine, we all have our priorities.

But on the economy and trade, Vote Leave is absolutely nowhere. Nowhere at all. Their statements are full of out-and-out falsehoods and made-up figures, through and through. They have spent the notional £9 billion saving (which has very rationally been shown may well not exist at all if GDP drops even a slivver) some twelve times over at the last count, which means that over 90% of the people they've made "promises" to won't get what they were told would be coming to them if they vote Leave. It's depressing that they're unwilling to even countenance being wrong on the issue, since it's the one that's going to have the most broad-based impact come brexit. If the economy collapses, everyone feels the pain.

 

[websaway]

I can understand the Leave camp's concerns about immigration. I happen to find those concerns overblown, and some of the stats they are using are very wobbly, but I can at least see where they are coming from. It's clear that relations with the rest of the EU would be significantly more harmonious if something could be done to address the biggest immigration issues, and there are future uncertainties (such as Turkey's possible eventual accession) that will need to be handled with kid gloves.

Ditto on sovereignty - the UK is much less beholden to the EU than some of the wilder Vote Leave rhetoric suggests, but it definitely does have to toe the EU line on a lot of things. Again, I see that and get it.

Neither factor is persuasive enough (for me) to sway me into the "Leave" camp, but they're both "valid concerns" and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. As evidenced by this thread, a lot of people weigh these issues more highly than I do and are consequently going to vote "Leave". And that's fine, we all have our priorities.

But on the economy and trade, Vote Leave is absolutely nowhere. Nowhere at all. Their statements are full of out-and-out falsehoods and made-up figures, through and through. They have spent the notional £9 billion saving (which has very rationally been shown may well not exist at all if GDP drops even a slivver) some twelve times over at the last count, which means that over 90% of the people they've made "promises" to won't get what they were told would be coming to them if they vote Leave. It's depressing that they're unwilling to even countenance being wrong on the issue, since it's the one that's going to have the most broad-based impact come brexit. If the economy collapses, everyone feels the pain.

I am warmed by your honesty in this post, I think it's the first time you have shown some honesty on the whole subject. Though you still underestimate the problems on the first two issues but over estimate the problems on the third . Exactly the stand the shadow deputy leader took yesterday.

I can be brief .
The economy will not collapse.

 

[websaway]

Vote Leave have officially admitted that 2 years' worth of negotiations will take 4 years, even if the plan they are advocating is followed. Down towards the bottom of the article, it's clear they're relying on handwavium to cover the gap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36534802

It's like a sky-diver saying "trust me, I can make a fantastic parachute in only 30 seconds" when they're going to impact the ground 15 seconds later.

Following on from Priti Patel's admission yesterday that their sums don't add up at all, it's a pretty damning indictment of their position.

Could you admit to treating your views to that of a general election. Whereby we all view short term affects of government projections.
It's difficult for you to relate to people who care about sovereignty, a precious position that is worth taking risks to preserve for ever, unless that is of course someone takes us on in a military fashion.
. Don't forget the future of the EU can not be determined at the ballot box, it will develop in a manor like it or not. We will one day be one vote of 30 or 35. Why would anyone want to go down that road.

 

[Edwin]

Article 50 provides for 2 years of negotiation, and no more. Vote Leave (in a rare and refreshing burst of honesty) have said full negotiations will take 4 years. The Remain camp have said they will take even longer.

But no matter which of Leave/Remain's figures you favour, both are way longer than the timeframe allowed for by Article 50. The consequence of that is that the UK would be exposed to year(s) of WTO-level trade barriers and tariffs in the "gap" while the negotiations are still carrying on. All forecasts agree that the WTO model is the worst of the many possible scenarios, with the greatest negative impact.

 

[Toonz]

Then it would be between Parliament and the people and the people would have to decide through the ballot box.

But if you had a crystal ball and saw that "uncontrolled immigration" was definitely going to continue post-Brexit, would you still vote to leave the EU next week? (Please don't say crystall balls don't exist - this is a hypothetical question )

 

[Edwin]

BTW, nobody is arguing (much) about the immigration statistics. The numbers are the numbers and are reasonably well accepted by both sides (admittedly, the future immigration numbers are more disputed however). But on immigration, at least, the heart of the debate is over whether it's "uncontrolled" or not, "too much" or not, and whether or not anything can or should be done to remediate the situation in future. You don't find the Remain side saying "actually you'll find only 5000 people came in last year - trust us on it".

But the Vote Leave camp dispute every economic projection, and treat all data and statistics with disdain, while providing zero fact-based evidence of their own. That's simply not a rational approach. It shuts down dialogue, because it's impossible to have a meaningful debate when the other side just says "No." "Nope." "You're wrong." "Absolutely not." without reasoning the case for the contrary position. It sandbags all discussion. No wonder Remain are getting frustrated!

This thread is a perfect microcosm example of what I described in the previous paragraph. There's been some discussion about immigration, a little about sovereignty (less than some contributers would like, granted) but I have yet to see anyone who favours Leave say "I can see how that might be true" about anything whatsoever to do with the economic, financial and trading future of the UK.

And the answer to an economic point is not "but... immigration" or "but... sovereignty." Neither immigration nor sovereignty issues invalidate the economics of brexit. They're all separate considerations that arise as a result of the UK's EU membership, and its possible rejection of same.

Had the economics of brexit been given a fair hearing by both parties, then:
A) The campaigns would not have become nearly so catty and ill-tempered and desperate as they are now
B) The Remain camp's position would have been bolstered (fairly) on the economic argument
C) It would be easier to take the Leave camp's concerns about immigration and sovereignty seriously and address them with the importance they deserve, because they'd demonstrated rationalism and that deserves rationalism in return

 

[websaway]

But if you had a crystal ball and saw that "uncontrolled immigration" was definitely going to continue post-Brexit, would you still vote to leave the EU next week? (Please don't say crystall balls don't exist - this is a hypothetical question )

Both sides of the commons are now recognising that controlled immigration is necessary. I think if the majority vote out then there is no conceivable way uncontrolled free movement will be on the table.