EU Referendum

[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.

 

[websaway]

Leaving the EU is not like having sanctions placed on us by the rest of the world. I think you might be confusing the position with that. It's something like 8% of the worlds countries are in the EU.
If we lose our sovereignty it is gone,it can not be regained.
If we lose trade , it will be temporary,we can regain it in time.

We can weather the storm, we can adjust our sales.
But if the boat is overloaded it will sink.

 

[cannybagotudor]

If you're looking at the markets you need to look at who controls the markets, namely the US. We have been in never ending austerity under this government, another couple of years for the greater good will make little difference, people are adjusting. Got a flyer from labour and the snp this morning saying remain, both wasted their money. In fact hopefully leave will do their leaflet drop the day before the election. Regardless of what all parties think of immigration (from eu countries) they cannot do a single thing to change it, it's part of the EU agreement to allow free travel and that will not change.

What is happening also is British people are losing their identity. Everyone can put their views across for either in or out, we are but a speck of dust to the number of people who will be voting and I expect this vote will have an exceptionally high turnout due to it's importance. If you look on the BBC's most popular stories, despite having osbournes threat of increasing tax on the front page, no eu story is in the top 10, people are growing sick of it which plays into the media on the day of the vote. Many of those who are undecided may simply see a headline they like and vote that way.

If the majority vote remain, I can accept that, my view is only but one, and likewise if the majority vote leave, the remain camp must accept that also. The handful of people in this thread certainly won't be influencing the masses, the media are taking sides and ultimately they have the power to influence votes. Murdoch has made his play, the BBC has also made it's play in a far more subtle way.

 

[websaway]

Financial Armageddon , world war three, old age pension cuts.


Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive

 

[martin-s]

There was a great comment in the press earlier, can't remember where.

Something along the lines of "if EU trade is such a brilliant thing to be part of, how on earth does the UK have such an awful trade deficit?"

 

[websaway]

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

The economics on Brexit probably would have been given a fairer hearing if they had not been grossly exaggerated from outset.
But the concerns of immigration and sovereignty can not be addressed inside the EU.

 

[gimpydog]

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

30 year UK gilt yields dipped below 2% for the first time ever this week. Money to invest, or spend on the NHS, has never been cheaper

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.

The 'experts' are dictating nothing. The market speculators are speculating. Let us know when the music stops..

Thats a huge amount of countries for us to make deals with. The average trade deal takes over 2 years.

Or we could just trade without a trade deal - just like we do with most countries.

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/threads/eu-referendum.140187/page-81#post-547717

 

[gimpydog]

hoards of people swamping their towns and cities

That bit, right there, is racist. If you're not sure why get someone to explain it to you

Perhaps I'm too old to understand, but I'll try.

Can you explain to me, in short simple English words, what your definition of racism is please?

 

[websaway]

Perhaps I'm too old to understand, but I'll try.

Can you explain to me, in short simple English words, what your definition of racism is please?

Don't forget this is my definition not necessarily the definition.
I believe that racism is discriminating against someone purely because of their race. I would extend it to disliking someone simply because of their race.

 

[bonusmedia]

Perhaps I'm too old to understand, but I'll try.

Can you explain to me, in short simple English words, what your definition of racism is please?

This is racist because it characterizes a group of people who are largely of other races as inferior, using derogatory, animalistic terms - 'hordes, swamping'.

The language is reminiscent of the way the Nazis dehumanized the Jews in the minds of the German people.

When human beings are described as animalistic or somehow sub-human, it gives people permission to think of them as 'other' and discriminate against them.

How would you feel if I described your family and friends as a horde that were swamping your town - is that a fair description?

 

[websaway]

This is racist because it characterizes a group of people who are largely of other races as inferior, using derogatory, animalistic terms - 'hordes, swamping'.

The language is reminiscent of the way the Nazis dehumanized the Jews in the minds of the German people.

When human beings are described as animalistic or somehow sub-human, it gives people permission to think of them as 'other' and discriminate against them.

How would you feel if I described your family and friends as a horde that were swamping your town - is that a fair description?

At the end of the football match hordes of fans swarmed onto the pitch to congratulate their team.

 

[BeachLife]

Or we could just trade without a trade deal - just like we do with most countries.

Yes, but under WTO rules this would require immediate tariffs, until such point a trade deal is negotiated. See my earlier post, quoting director from the head of the WTO, where he states this would cost £9bn a year for UK consumers.

Unless you are say we should leave the WTO also?

 

[bonusmedia]

At the end of the football match hordes of fans swarmed onto the pitch to congratulate their team.

You said swamped initially, but yes this example still compares the fans to animals. Context is everything - it's pretty clear that the idea of hordes of immigrants swamping a town is not a positive description but a derogatory one.

 

[websaway]

This is racist because it characterizes a group of people who are largely of other races as inferior, using derogatory, animalistic terms - 'hordes, swamping'.

The language is reminiscent of the way the Nazis dehumanized the Jews in the minds of the German people.

When human beings are described as animalistic or somehow sub-human, it gives people permission to think of them as 'other' and discriminate against them.

How would you feel if I described your family and friends as a horde that were swamping your town - is that a fair description?

It isn't a group of people it's all different kinds of people , I'm afraid your argument as most of your arguments simply doesn't hold water.
Hordes of hibs fans swarmed onto the pitch in the Scottish cup final is not a racist definition of who they were, they were people unknown, the same as my example.. The unknown is the most frightening issue of my original post. So people are rightly concerned about hoards of people flooding their towns and cities, they know not where they come from or who they are . Put the racist card back in your pocket to use in the event that you really need it. But that never has and never will be necessary with me. Sorry to disappoint but when you scrape the barrel for results you often get disappointed.