BREXIT

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

You're doing the accountant thing. You're looking at those numbers in isolation.

We will NOT have that money to spend as we see fit, because what we may gain in reduced payments to the EU will be lost many times over in reduced economic performance. That is the overwhelming consensus of economists in this country and abroad.

Put it this way. Our net payment is less than 0.5% of GDP. The CBI estimates that membership of the EU boosts our economy by 4-5% of GDP compared to any rational alternative arrangement.

You're being conned I'm afraid.

Leave is, at core, an ideologically driven idea. It's about the notion of sovereignty. Now, we can discuss that concept on its merits, but the economic aspect is about as clear as any issue can be in that field. If we leave, we are knowingly choosing a significantly poorer future. Anyone who tells you differently is either bullshitting you (Farage, Johnson, Gove, IDS et al) or is from the furthest fringes of economic wrongheadedness (eg Minford).

The Leave economic case is built on:
a) lies about this £350m per week contribution.
b) refusal to engage in any macroeconomic discussion or projections about alternative scenarios.
c) insistence that "it'll be alright."
d) Throwing out slurs and questioning the motives of anyone who does present detailed projections.

There isn't an economic argument to support Leave. That's why they don't engage in a discussion beyond those 4 points.

Make your decision on sovereignty if you wish. But don't do it whilst convincing yourself that we'll be economically better off leaving. You owe it to yourself and to the country to be honest and clear about that.

[GazLaz]

In the short term it is obvious we will be worse off as a country but don't you think that long term we could be stronger?

[Glyn_Wigley]

In the short term it is obvious we will be worse off as a country but don't you think that long term we could be stronger?

Yes, we could. But then Nigel Farage could also be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm not wasting any money at the bookies backing it though.

[BillyStubbsTears]

As John Maynard Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead.

Point is, there is no sensible economic modelling that indicates that we WILL be better off in the long run. Meantime, we know as well as we can know anything in economics that we WILL be worse off in the short to medium term. And the effect is cumulative. Lose 1% of GDP per annum for 5 years and we end up £250bn poorer as a country.

What gets me about the Leave argument is that, when faced with that, they say:
a) I don't trust those numbers: you can't predict what will happen
Followed by
b) But we'll be better off in the long run anyway.

See the logic breakdown? Either you CAN predict, in which case accept the overwhelming consensus that Leave will hit us hard for the rest of the decade. Or you CAN'T predict. In which case, you are guessing what the future will be. You can't have it both ways.

But the single most mendacious argument from Leave is "oh, the economic predictions are mixed."

No they are not. Not in the way that we'd normally consider that to mean. Economists overwhelmingly believe that we will be worse off both in the short term AND in the long term.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3739/Economists-Views-on-Brexit.aspx

The Leave side is telling you to ignore that. To trust instead the judgement of Farage and Johnson. Of Nigel Lawson who brought you the mad late 80s boom, inflation and early 90s recession. Of Norman Lamont, who brought you Black Wednesday. Of Patrick Minford who brought you the insane monetarist experiment of the early 80s which failed to control inflation and gave us 2-3m unemployment for a decade.

And they then say that anyone who questions their arguments is scaremongering.

Like I say, vote Leave if you wish. But do it from a position of having carefully thought about the economics and the economic arguments. Don't deceive yourself that there is a subtletly balanced argument here. There isn't.

 

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS:

The Leave economic case is built on:
a) lies about this £350m per week contribution.
b) refusal to engage in any macroeconomic discussion or projections about alternative scenarios.
c) insistence that "it'll be alright."
d) Throwing out slurs and questioning the motives of anyone who does present detailed projections.

On the radio this morning, an hour or so after I posted that, a UKIP MEP used EXACTLY those 4 arguments, in that order.


The same woman, in the same interview said, within the same 60 seconds:
We have the equivalent of the city of Newcastle arriving every year through immigration. We are going to have 10m more immigrants.

Followed by:

You can't plan public services if you don't know how many immigrants we're going to have.

[i_ateallthepies]

BFYP, if it isn't relevant to the debate why are the leave politicians using it?  To con the gullible amongst us into supporting them.

[Sammy Chung was King]

Vote for either stay or leave, and we still have the same problem, trying to guess what's going to happen in the future, the answer is nobody truly knows.
The politicians have been no help at all, both sides laying the extremes out, they haven't made it easy for any of us to decide where the cross goes.
There is too much infighting and jockeying for position going on. If only labour had a leader that could take advantage of all this turmoil that the tories are in. Unfortunately labour are a bigger basket case than they are!.

How i see it look at the area you live in, look at the opportunties that are available to your kids when work comes along. Are you happy if the village you live in has a big influx of people?. Are there enough houses for them to have a home?. Will immigrants improve you're area? or make it worse?.
Can you get you're kids into the local school?, if yes will it be likely to be like that in the future?. Have the government been building a bigger system to cope with extra people coming here to live?.
 Is it safer to have people coming from different countries?, or is it safer to have some control over borders with our own government deciding?, i know Schengen will be quoted, but is it working?.

Will companies start training our own kids if we leave, with a view to employing them?, as some are not bothering as foreign workers have already been earmarked for the jobs!.
Do you think the government has your best interests at heart when they say stay?. Are Boris& co so determined because they are worried about you're future?. Will the government if it leaves spend the money saved on improving the country?.
If we leave will the government put more funding into training our own people so they can qualify to be nurses and doctors?. If we stay will the increased presence of nurses and doctors in the nhs who don't speak proper english lead to more mistakes?.

Which is safer for you're kids future taking a guess, for communities to be pretty much where they are now, with mixed values and beliefs?, or with a lot more people in each area with mixed values and beliefs?.
Would the nhs collapse without these hardworking people from abroad?. Is our nhs capable of treating a new cities worth of extra people?.
Finally which is safer, taking a guess because that's all we can do, is it safer to go back to how we were?, or is it safer to have millions of people flooding into the country?.

[RedJ]

Hahaha, "guess"? one side has set out an economic argument, the other has basically said "trust us, we'll be alright".

And as for the immigration argument, if that's your sole reason for voting to leave, then f**king hell.

[The Red Baron]

Last few Polls showing consistent if small leads for Leave. Going to be very close either way.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/743357571667419137/photo/1

[Muttley]

Last few Polls showing consistent if small leads for Leave. Going to be very close either way.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/743357571667419137/photo/1

Still 20% who might yet change their mind

[idler]

I think that the final result will be a small majority to remain.
This ought to tell both the British government and the EU that there are serious issues that a good percentage of the electorate think need addressing.
Most aren't necessarily against what the Common Market was formed as but are very concerned about what the EU is becoming without having any influence on changing it.

[The Red Baron]

I think that the final result will be a small majority to remain.
This ought to tell both the British government and the EU that there are serious issues that a good percentage of the electorate think need addressing.
Most aren't necessarily against what the Common Market was formed as but are very concerned about what the EU is becoming without having any influence on changing it.

Inclined to agree. The experience of the Scottish Referendum is that quite a lot of people switched sides at the last minute.

I go back to poll Vote Leave tweeted. Unlike them I'm not sure they can count on more than 3-4% of those who are wavering Remainers.

https://mobile.twitter.com/vote_leave/status/742747673598517252

[The Red Baron]

Also interesting that both Teresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have talked about further reform of the EU if we stay in.

One disadvantage that Remain has which the No campaign in Scotland didn't have is that Remain can't offer concessions in the face of increasing Leave support. Talking about reform is the nearest they can come to that. Although it does beg the question as to why Cameron couldn't secure something more far-reaching.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP


We will NOT have that money to spend as we see fit, because what we may gain in reduced payments to the EU will be lost many times over in reduced economic performance. That is the overwhelming consensus of economists in this country and abroad.

Put it this way. Our net payment is less than 0.5% of GDP. The CBI estimates that membership of the EU boosts our economy by 4-5% of GDP compared to any rational alternative arrangement.

And here is my point, it's based on assumptions.  Neither you or I can confirm what will happen either way, though I don't think anyone would argue against a short term shock. I then would expect the economics to settle down simply because we are not as entwined in Europe as anyone thinks.  I'm also pretty convinced a free trade deal could be done, the EU has more to lose than us.

It isn't solely about economics for me though.  You ask me to admit that and I do, it's about more than that.

My stance is fairly clear.  Integration and common sharing of strenghts is good, I've no issue with that, but it is all far too far.  Freedom of movement, imposed laws, imposed financial contributions and mass redistribution of wealth continent wide are not positives to me.  We can be a co-ordinated Europe, but we should still clearly be Britain, France, Germany, Spain etc - we should work together but still be seperate.  It is the movement towards a European state that I don't want to part of.  We are still vitally important in or out and we've not a great amount to fear upon leaving.  It won't all be positive, but it won't all be bad.

[Lipsy]

His message is one of hope, apparently...

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

Of course you can't CONFIRM what will happen after next Thursday. No more than you can "confirm" that you'll disembark safely when you climb on a plane.

When you fly, you trust the collective judgement of a lot of very smart people who have devoted their lives to developing models of how complex systems ought to respond to complex situations. They don't know for certain that they are right. They make a best estimate. And YOU put your faith in them every time you fly.

Why won't you do the same thing on the economics arguments about Brexit. Why does that issue become a "well, ANYTHING could happen" response? 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sammy

That post is a symptom of one of the most worrying features in the modern debate.

What you post about politicians is simply untrue. There ARE some who go into politics for personal aggrandisement - Boris Johnson is the most obvious example. There are plenty who are not brilliant at what they do. But the overwhelming majority are hard-working, diligent, and in it because (whether you agree with them or not) they have a belief that they can help to make things better for the people of the country.

I vehemently disagree with pretty much everything that IDS and Gove believe in. But they DO believe in their main political ideals and they work damn hard to try to get them implemented because they fervently belief that they would make the country a better place.

Your post is an exemplar of the modern cynicism that assumes that everyone in politics is out for themselves and no-one else. It never was true and it isn't today. Go and speak to a politician. Go and speak to the local ones like Lucas, Winterton or Miliband. Book a session at their surgery. Spend 5 minutes in their company and get an idea of the drive and zeal and nous that they have.

What really scares me is that the sort of wrong-headed ideas that you have are very, very common. It is, frankly, ignorance parading as intelligent scepticism. And when people are as disconnected as that from politics and politicians, it leaves us open to be seduced by the smart, savvy snake-oil salesmen who really ARE only in it for themselves. Like the Kitson who is angling to replace Cameron.

And some MPs end up giving more than anyone should ever have to.

[Donnywolf]

I think that the final result will be a small majority to remain.
This ought to tell both the British government and the EU that there are serious issues that a good percentage of the electorate think need addressing.
Most aren't necessarily against what the Common Market was formed as but are very concerned about what the EU is becoming without having any influence on changing it.

Inclined to agree. The experience of the Scottish Referendum is that quite a lot of people switched sides at the last minute.

I go back to poll Vote Leave tweeted. Unlike them I'm not sure they can count on more than 3-4% of those who are wavering Remainers.

https://mobile.twitter.com/vote_leave/status/742747673598517252

I am inclined to agree with both of you. I settled on Remain ages ago and given I have a Postal Vote sent it off a week ago after which I felt "relieved" and all the arguments both pro and anti are irrelevant to me

However Mrs DW is one who is still genuinely wrestling trying to come up with a definitive and decisive opinion (on this issue - she is usually good on others !). She is agonising because she wants to "get it right" for the generations to come but in truth we cant / probably never will know what choosing one rather than the other would have made.

I don't blame her - I blame the fact that we as lay people have been exposed by Referendum to a horrendous and difficult (almost impossible) choice without any real facts. I said that in my first post when it all kicked off and so it has proven that the campaign would be one of myths and counter myths with phrases such as  "a leap in the dark" becoming the norm.

We wanted FACTS and we have not had them because in the main I suppose they aren't available and its such a travesty that we are supposed as an electorate to decide by "hunch" or "personality".... and I can see (guessing) that like Scottish Independence wont go away because the Pro vote there can see chances to bring it up again and again till they win - that if the Vote here is "Remain" by a few percentage points then the issue will continue rumbling on - the losing Leave people will fight on and on. It WONT be a done deal

However the sad thing if we vote Leave (say 51 49) - that will be that surely ? No way back - possibly shot ourselves in foot - negotiating to make a controlled withdrawal - and there will be no chance of the 49% being able to remonstrate. Its over !

[idler]

The EU now seems just like the big multi-national companies that flout laws and reach decisions that benefit nobody but themselves and their shareholders.
Reform is needed but unfortunately that seems something that we can't influence.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah. Like the working week directive. And the Strategy for Sustainable Development. I'm sure Bug Business was campaigning hard for those.

[Colemans Left Hook]

Yeah. Like the working week directive. And the Strategy for Sustainable Development. I'm sure Bug Business was campaigning hard for those.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/industrial-relations-dictionary/zero-hours-contracts

"There is no regulation of zero-hours contracts at European level, and their implementation varies between Member States. In Ireland, there is some legal protection for employees on zero-hours contracts while in Italy the use of on-call contracts is restricted by law. In the Netherlands, during the first six months of a work relationship the employer has to pay only for the hours worked. However, after this period, the employer has to pay for the average hours worked in the previous three months for as long as the contract is active, even if the worker is never called in. Collective sectoral agreements can extend this six-month period indefinitely and add other elements.

In the UK, a zero-hours contract is not a legal term and has no specific legal status. Thus its conditions vary from employer to employer. Zero-hours contracts are a particular focus of debate in the UK, where there have been calls from trade unions and employee representative bodies for more regulation."

[BillyStubbsTears]

And your point is?

[Glyn_Wigley]

It looks like his point is that the British government hasn't done anything about zero-hours contracts and he thinks the EU should. That's what it looks like anyway.

[RedJ]

But then they'd be interfering in British affairs affecting our sovereignty in order to try to protect workers' rights. bas**rds.

[Glyn_Wigley]

But then they'd be interfering in British affairs affecting our sovereignty in order to try to protect workers' rights. bas**rds.

It is the British Government's sovereign right to crush the workers in any way they see fit!

[Lipsy]

I don't think "We demand the sovereign right to f**k up our own country all by ourselves" would be much of a Leave campaign....

It would at least be honest, mind.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I don't think "We demand the sovereign right to f**k up our own country all by ourselves" would be much of a Leave campaign....

It would at least be honest, mind.

It'd be interested to see who the government and the Daily Mail etc. blame for the cock-ups when they're no longer able to blame the EU for them!

[Lipsy]

Because coming out of the EU will fix the immigration problems, innit? We both know that nothing will change, and EU citizens will end up having the same rights to come and go in and out of the UK as they have now. As such, the DM and the Government will have its old ammo to draw from.

Besides, the DM has the unemployed, unemployed large families, foreigners already here, Muslims, the poor, middle-aged men who run off with younger women, anyone that doesn't vote Tory, Labour, Greens... Oh, I give up - the DM has plenty of people to crap all over to feed the hate(rs).

[RedJ]

I'm voting leave to stop them Pakistanis comin in lol hurr hurr

[Lipsy]

"Coming over here, inventing a national dish..."