[Politics] Brexit

DTES said:

Selective quoting there. The bit where you write "...." actually says:



This is right alongside



Best case +1.6%; worst case -2.2%. Expected range -0.8% to 0.6%.

That hardly endorses Leave!

Click to expand...

DTES said:

Selective quoting there. The bit where you write "...." actually says:



This is right alongside



Best case +1.6%; worst case -2.2%. Expected range -0.8% to 0.6%:

That hardly endorses Leave, and I don't think it cancels out any of the analyses that support Remain.

Click to expand...

JC Footy Genius said:

Which contradicts/disproves your 'It doesn't predict a better outcome for our economy if we Leave than if we Remain though' . statement.

Click to expand...

Have you had a look for other pro Brexit economic forecasts yet?

Click to expand...

gregbrighton said:

?So in effect, not much, if any better than what we have now. Add to that the additional beauracracy, the uncertainty and instability of the markets, the possible huge job losses as big businesses move their operations away from the UK, the break-up of the union as Scotland vote to vote out of the UK, the huge brain drain...

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

what about the additional bureaucracy, the uncertainty of the markets, possible job losses as big businesses move operations away from the UK, and the breakup of the union as Scotland vote to leave? why do the In crowd pretend that none of these things are likely if we stay in the EU? its worth noting that Gove and Johnson aren't anti-immigration, Farage wasn't originally until they hitched onto that bandwagon. its hardly an extremist point of view to want to govern yourself rather than hand over powers to a foreign nation. If Brexit was about just immigration, we'd never had the referendum.

Click to expand...

gregbrighton said:

You weirdo.

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

what about the additional bureaucracy, the uncertainty of the markets, possible job losses as big businesses move operations away from the UK, and the breakup of the union as Scotland vote to leave? why do the In crowd pretend that none of these things are likely if we stay in the EU? its worth noting that Gove and Johnson aren't anti-immigration, Farage wasn't originally until they hitched onto that bandwagon. its hardly an extremist point of view to want to govern yourself rather than hand over powers to a foreign nation. If Brexit was about just immigration, we'd never had the referendum.

Click to expand...

gregbrighton said:

No facts, no strategy. Just kick out the immigrants

Click to expand...

gregbrighton said:

If we Brexit, will that mean all the pensioners will be thrown out of Spain.

Click to expand...

gregbrighton said:

is all this worth it to stop immigrants coming to this country. Millions are already here! Are the Brexiters going chuck these people out like Nazi Germany?

Click to expand...

pastafarian said:

European Convention on Human Rights doing its stuff again,

Anders Behring Breivik, Norway murderer, wins human rights case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36094575

Click to expand...

DTES said:

Not to disagree with your on Breivik, but ECHR is nothing to do with the EU and the result of this referendum won't affect how the ECHR affects us. There are 28 countries in the EU; all 47 members of the Council of Europe are signed up to the ECHR.

Click to expand...

gregbrighton said:

You weirdo.

Click to expand...

Scunner said:

I haven't contributed on here up to now because I have been actively engaging in the debate on Facebook and Twitter mostly. I have joined Vote Leave and have paid a donation.

I think that George Osborne's report will eventually play into the hands of the Brexit camp with this report. Up to now the argument has mainly focused on process - Sovereignty, Border controls, Democratic mandate etc etc - rather than substance. And this report will force the Brexit camp to concentrate on substance when it comes to economic arguments.

The economic reasons for leaving the EU are sound, but they have to be made. There are three principal areas that leave should focus on, firstly the sclerotic nature of the EU economy, it has stagnated and will continue to do so while the eurozone lacks a federal fiscal policy to support it. By intensifying the debate over the misbegotten attempt to meld unproductive and unregulated Mediterranean economies with productive and growing economies in the north, the out camp can reveal that the eurozone was always going to fail without a federal structure. They can then create the fear of a federal Europe as a necessary by-product of saving the eurozone. Remain campaigners can then point out that we are not in the eurozone, but this should lead to the trap, which is the second substance point.

Immigration will be the deciding factor of the referendum. The price the UK will have to pay over the next decade for its 'special status' outside of the eurozone highlighted above, is the elephant in the room, immigration, 'we have control' the remain camp cry. No we don't. And it's going to get worse, far worse.

For evidence of this one only has to look to the case of the German journalist who will now face prosecution because of Erdogan's blackmailing of Merkel. The EU is terrified that immigration is going to tip the balance of the Brexit debate, so they are doing everything that they can to stifle bad news.

Over the next 10 years this - even according to George Osborne's own leaflet - will see NET immigration exceed 1 million people, attracted by a successful nation and a lucrative benefits system.

That is the same as a city the size of Birmingham, And think about that for a second. Think about it without the archetypal Brighton yoghurt munching beardy liberal 'let em all in and anyone who thinks differently is a swivel eyed racist' approach and think about it structurally, about the substance of that.

Take the M25 as an example, and let's for the sake of argument add to it the woefully inadequate London to Brighton rail link. How many tracks do you want there to be? How many lanes wide does the M25 have to be? How will the UK infrastructure cope?. That leaves aside more nebulous, but no less valid, fears about national identity.

The British have traditionally been diplomatic, liberal, independent, innovative (still 3rd in the global index), trading and has been open to diverse cultures that wish to integrate here. That last point is changing in Newtonian fashion. The resistance of both the Islamic religion to integration and the liberal cornerstone of our nature to accept that rejection of our culture is a reality has created a febrile reaction in the lower social classes. If Britian Brexits, which I hope it will for the third reason below, it will be this that is the main reason.

The third reason is the system of jurisprudence that we live with - the principle of judge made and precedent led Common Law. The EU is a civil law body, and this runs in deep contrast to our system. Traditionally we have had an 'adversarial' culture in our law, and European countries an 'inquisitorial' culture. Also, in civil law countries the state controls law making by statute, and in effect the citizens of those countries can act in whichever way the state allows them to. This contrasts directly with UK/US/Commonwealth common law system which, in effect means that individuals can act in whichever way they choose unless there is a common law, or a codified statutory law that prohibits that action. The difference may appear nuanced but the substance of that difference is substantial.

If the Brexit camp were to start to focus on the substance of this it would drag out the detail of the ridiculous levels of regulation the EU needs to create in order to be able to function even moderately well. In turn this regulation supersedes common law to the resentment and bewilderment of us. All you need to do is think about some petty piece of EU regulation and wonder why it exists, and why we didn't have it. The reason we didn't is because of the common law principle. No one thought to question curvy cucumbers and there was no case law to make us do so, nor a government inclined to bring it to Hansard. However, the EU had to regulate because one state cannot be seen to have an advantage over another. But the fact is people, that 1000 years of common law principle from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights is being thrown away. By voting to remain you will be ensuring that your children and your children's children will be finally residing under civil law governance that various Kings and Parliaments have fought to resist. It's happening by mission creep and it is upsetting those people willing to see and not those with there eyes shielded by indifference.

Vote Leave.

Click to expand...

Lincoln Imp said:

You were doing so well until the very last sentence, when the temptation to patronise seemed to overwhelm you.

Click to expand...

cunning fergus said:

You poor love.

As I have said before I always aim to be less supercilious than NSC's Smugmeister General HT.........I think the post was fine, approx. 200 words of substance, and 5 cheeky.........I think a "patronising" rate of less than 5% would indicate I was far from overwhelmed.

Click to expand...

sten_super said:

I think we're talking in circles here. So there view is 'relevant' but can be disregarded because sometimes experts are wrong.



I don't share your cynicism. Sure, some agents have agendas (and some are more obvious than others). I don't think it's fair to then say that every senior person on either side of the debate is making the case purely due to self interest. For example, I think that can level that accusation at the Treasury modelling, or the 'evidence' produced by the CBI - but I don't see the obvious agenda held by Oxford Economics or LSE (both of whom undertook their own economic modelling which showed economic damage from Brexit). From reading the brief bios of the three Leave experts that you list, I can't see what Ruth Lea's angle would be, so am minded to think that she's making the case she is because it's what she believes, and because she wants the best outcome for the country. Perhaps that makes me naive (I suspect you think it does).



Now we're getting somewhere. Increased exposure to the EU as a trading partner would clearly be a negative thing if there are further economic crises in the Eurozone. My response to that would be - why does staying in the EU mean we can't shift our export focus in the way suggested by Brexit campaigners? It seems to me (from an economic perspective) that Brexit is choosing to reduce our trade with the EU, on the off-chance that there's a crisis (which would probably have a broadly similar impact on trade to Brexit), rather than just expanding from our current EU-focussed exports market to a position (which is happening already) whereby we aim to export increasingly to other countries, to in effect diversify our export markets.



Which experts? Can you point me to the track record that states that every single 'expert' that is currently supporting the Remain position was also pro the Euro? Notably, Dave Ramsden, the Treasury Chief Economist, who led the Treasury work on the numbers produced yesterday, also led on the Treasury's analysis of the economics of joining the Euro, which opposed membership (and led to the establishment of Gordon Brown and Ed Ball's 'Golden Rules'). As I've said to [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] previously, the idea that we should dismiss the opinions of a large body of experts just because some of them may have been on the wrong side of one decision historically doesn't wash with me.

Click to expand...