No-one's ignoring it, they're simply not giving it the amount of attention and strength that those using it to fuel the remain campaign seem to be doing. Maybe they should listen to their own advice, look at it and say "hmm that's interesting" and leave it there.Well done for providing just the type of rebuttal I came to describe.
No I am not admitting it as a fantasy forecast, it is based on a model of the UK out of the EU as proposed by Boris Johnson no less, Crown Prince of the Brexit campaign.
Let's just be frank, forecasts can be right or wrong, but only those deluded enough to back the Brexit would ignore it's sentiment altogether.
People in Britain seem to believe that;Another point that doesn't seem to be debated is that I think leaving would enable the country to swing strongly to the right. A good thing in my book, but not for many on here I think.
The UK is and has always been inherently more right wing than the rest of the EU and that's been the cause of much friction. Doubtless the inherently more socialist outlook of the EU compared to that of the UK is one of the things that's attracting Corbin to stay in.
Your posted up "Comprehensive" migration studies were all carried out when there was a restriction in place on A8s, the studies were ALL based on just the A8s, so rather than try blaming me for unreasonably discrediting it how about a simple admission that in this case you got it wrong.
WHY there are no "Comprehensive" studies available of any date after 2011 is a question you should be asking yourself, and while you claim the treasury report has been unreasonably attacked there is one easy way to check, Given the centrality of immigration and free movement in the political debate on Brexit, would YOU think it dishonest to ignore the effects of this ending while preparing a report on any future ?
No-one's ignoring it, they're simply not giving it the amount of attention and strength that those using it to fuel the remain campaign seem to be doing. Maybe they should listen to their own advice, look at it and say "hmm that's interesting" and leave it there.
NOT use it as conclusive evidence of what will happen in the event of Brexit, as many seem to be doing.
You just have, right there. You're comparing Osbourne's report to all the others as yet more proof that an exit would be devastating to the British public. With every person praising it as "eye-opening" there's another debunking it as gobbledegook.I don't think anyone is using it as conclusive evidence, because the forecasts are long range and they can and probably will be wrong in some way.
However it is just the latest in a long line of reports, studies and papers highlighting the future would be better should we remain in the EU.
The more that comes out, the harder it is for the Leave campaign to ignore/discredit.
None of the above matters though mate, does it. Honestly, you think we should leave the EU because we can't have tall ladders? When people take the emotion out of it and think logically and rationally, there isn't much that the EU does to us that REALLY hurts us. i.e. hurts us to the point that it's intolerable and we MUST leave.
The treasury report willingly ignored the government 100,000 target on net migration because it is common knowledge that the government would struggle to meet this target. It therefore adopted the estimates of the OBR (185,000 per year from 2021) to provide it's analysis and still concludes we will be better off.
You just have, right there. You're comparing Osbourne's report to all the others as yet more proof that an exit would be devastating to the British public. With every person praising it as "eye-opening" there's another debunking it as gobbledegook.
Adding it to the 'pile' further shows the remain campaigns project fear campaign to scare you into voting the way they want and not the way you should. If you are to vote remain I really really hope its not down to reports like this that swayed your opnion.
I don't think anyone is using it as conclusive evidence, because the forecasts are long range and they can and probably will be wrong in some way.
However it is just the latest in a long line of reports, studies and papers highlighting the future would be better should we remain in the EU.
The more that comes out, the harder it is for the Leave campaign to ignore/discredit.
IMHO people don't need a report in order to work out the consequences. The fact is, the EU is our biggest export market and therefore it is logically inevitable that if our ability to sell into that market was impaired, it would be bad for our economy. At the very least in the short term whilst we took time to develop other markets. British companies selling into Europe would be significantly disadvantaged - and those who are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy already, would be forced into bankruptcy. I can't see how anyone could argue this is not the case.
So the whole debate really hinges on one central point: If we were to leave, would we be able to negotiate any time soon a trade agreement that gives us broadly the same access to the European market as we have today, without significant strings attached and penalties, tarifs etc. People should ask themselves that question.
For me, the answer is blindingly obvious that EU can never agree to what the Outers suggest we can have. If they did agree, more or less every country would want out. And they also couldn't agree because it would be damaging to individual countries' prospects. Their businesses, burdened with EU regulation and costs would be asked to compete on a level playing field with UK companies that are not burdened in the same way. The UK companies would do better in those circumstances, with less regulation and potentially lower cost base that their European counterparts. The European national governments recognise this and therefore will not agree. France has publicly stated it will not agree. Trading freely in the EU, necessarily requires participants to agree to the basic same rules on working conditions and movement of labour etc. It's not optional.
So this idea that we can leave and everything will be roses because we can enjoy all the benefits of openly trading with the EU, but none of the downsides, is honestly pure fantasy. It can never happen. It's obvious when you think about it.
So all you'd need is to have dozens of people coming out with similar "Brexit is bad" arguments, regardless of their accuracy or credibility, as growing evidence to support a campaign to stay?I think you are confusing 'conclusive evidence' with 'weight of evidence' I am quite clearly referencing the weight of evidence. You can never have conclusive evidence because we are debating an unknown future impact. Conclusive evidence can only be gathered from a past and known quantity.
Clearly the weight of evidence is pointing towards remaining, if you had read the treasury report you'll find it references a wider array of other studies on the subject conducted over many years by a number of different bodies.
The 'whataboutery' continues from the Leave campaigners, the challenge is for them to balance out the weight of evidence with some of their own, they can't.
I am not happy with Cameron making Osbourne chancellor, with farage abstaining on a decent commissioner , I am happy with a pro euro MP supporting an EU commissioner I like , I was happy when Blair nominated Brown. But my happiness is irellevant as it is shaped my views, what matters is that governments that are elected by people make decisions when they win and that is why they elect them. I don't expect Cameron to check in with the electorate every time a cabinet minister resigns or an EU commissioner changes. For that I have voted in elections be they national or European.No, no, no, no, no. That's not how it works. A member is nominated by a member state and the parliament votes for it, yes, but the public has absolutely NO say in exactly who the candidate put forward is. No democratic process is followed in campaigning for who should be nominated. It is worth pointing out as well that all EU commissioners do not act in the interest of the nation from which they were selected, they act in accordance to European interests. For example a British EU Commissioner does not act on behalf of interests that affect the UK directly, but only those of the EU.
In your interest, you have UKIP members making up the majority of British influence in the EU. They are your voice in deciding who should and should not be appointed as one of the unelected commissioners. Are you happy about that? Knowing that Britain's representatives in Europe are eurosceptic and would likely vote or abstain from voting on any or every EU commissioner appointment? Because that's how the EU system works.
No it didn`t, it totally ignored any effect from regaining control of our borders and being able to pick what kind of people and how many we let in.
I note that yet again you are unable to admit the studies you tried to pass off as evidence were nonsense ;0)
This sums up the problems you see the in canpaign through the very same lenses I see the out campaign, all hot air and no subtle trance and based on pie in the sky imagination. All we do know is where we are today that is a fact and so there is a basis for the inners. As for the outer you who are the most reasoned on this thread from the out perspective still admit there are a number of major options if out wins and no one knows which it will be and which is achievable and many outers would find some of those options unpalatable.So all you'd need is to have dozens of people coming out with similar "Brexit is bad" arguments, regardless of their accuracy or credibility, as growing evidence to support a campaign to stay?
The weight of evidence as you call it is up for debate, a debate many inners choose to ignore. "It's been said, therefore it's true". Is there any skeptism in the In campaign anymore? Do you all believe at face value what they tell you? Can't you wait until people can provide a convincing counter arguement or do you demand a rebuttal to claims immediately? I'm listening to Gove's speech right now, and later i'll go over it and find out if what he's saying is feasible and accurate, regardless of the fact it serves my interest to leave, i'm not just going to accept that what he's saying is true, just as if in the next few weeks several promising 'leave' statements are made creating a weight of evidence that leaving is beneficial.
At the moment, from past experience and knowledge about the EU, i'm in favour of a leave vote. So far nothing the remain campaign has said has done enough to change my mind, rather makes me skeptical about what their true motives are about how forceful they are to wish to remain in and the rhetoric they are using which has an air of "join, or die" about it. Osbourne wants to remain, Cameron wants to remain, Corbyn, who for decades opposed Britain being in the Common Market, changed his tune. That should set alarm bells ringing, and not in the sense of the interest to remain, either.
At the moment, from past experience and knowledge about the EU, i'm in favour of a leave vote. So far nothing the remain campaign has said has done enough to change my mind, rather makes me skeptical about what their true motives are about how forceful they are to wish to remain in and the rhetoric they are using which has an air of "join, or die" about it. Osbourne wants to remain, Cameron wants to remain, Corbyn, who for decades opposed Britain being in the Common Market, changed his tune. That should set alarm bells ringing, and not in the sense of the interest to remain, either.
Firstly if we drop into the EEA (The best case scenario as highlighted by many studies), then we have NO change to free movement. So there needs to be no analysis of migration under that circumstance.
Secondly, being in control of our borders means very little, we have needed inward migration to fill labour gaps, most notably at the very low and very high end of the skills market. There is no link between unfettered migration and increased native unemployment, nor is there any link between migration and increased cost to public services, in fact migration helps pay for public services.
You're either trolling or being wilfully ignorant.
People in Britain seem to believe that;
Right Wing = evil, murder, death, torture, poo poo.
Left Wing = peace, progressiveness and children with gum drop smiles.
Modern society, you have to laugh at it sometimes.
do you never hear...
Right Wing = jobs, prosperity & wealth for all
Left Wing = loss of jobs, and its the poorest in society will suffer the most
?
I think you are being ridiculously blinkered. Is it not possible that all of the people you mention actually want what's best for Britain? We are talking about people who chose a career in politics where their earnings are fraction of what they could earn in the private sector pursuing more commercially rewarding opportunities. Politicians by the vast majority are in politics because they care about things and want to make a difference. It's as simple as that.
And as to the arguments against leaving, have a read of my post. If we leave, we will either have to sign up to the same set of rules that we are bound by already (in which case, what's the point of leaving) or we will have to trade with the EU on a restrictive basis with significant barriers and tarifs. Those are the choices and neither makes for a sensible option.
Very broadly true especially with Bush and Obama.I wish we heard that more, because it is broadly true.
Politics doesn't work like that anymoredo you never hear...
Right Wing = jobs, prosperity & wealth for all
Left Wing = loss of jobs, and its the poorest in society will suffer the most
?