EU referendum

[smudgedj]

Thanks for your reply mate.....I think the only issue is that "short term" pain might have long term impacts on many individuals and thats what we have to balance when making this decision...thanks for the discussion!; )

De Nada

 

[BigJoe#1]

I agree mate they dont have all the answers...but they know alot more than you or I and can take an "independent" view of things.....we are more likely to let emotion/opinion cloud our judgement...and as for just thinking of myself I disagree.....but you are just kidding yourself if you think your personal situation doesnt impact the way you going to vote....the less risk to the individual the more lightly they are to vote out.......

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your note the two things that detract me from the e onomists are:-

1. They probably have self interests at heart when making such predictions.

2. They were spectacularly wrong over the ERM and joining the Euro.

All I can say is, don't always believe everything you're told. It's only speculation and opinion tinted with what's n it for my market sector!

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your note the two things that detract me from the e onomists are:-

1. They probably have self interests at heart when making such predictions.

2. They were spectacularly wrong over the ERM and joining the Euro.

All I can say is, don't always believe everything you're told. It's only speculation and opinion tinted with what's n it for my market sector!

These same experts have been predicting interest rates will start to rise again EVERY YEAR since 2008, so on the back of this people have sought to fix their mortgage rates at a rate higher than they would have got on the standard variable rate. Has it increased in that time, has it fuck. Yer these experts are always independent and right.

Who has gained over that period by people wrongly rushing to fix, oh yes that's right the banks.....

 

[TRUE BLUE NO1]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your note the two things that detract me from the e onomists are:-

1. They probably have self interests at heart when making such predictions.

2. They were spectacularly wrong over the ERM and joining the Euro.

All I can say is, don't always believe everything you're told. It's only speculation and opinion tinted with what's n it for my market sector!

I agree mate....its a bit like a jigsaw...you just have to take little bits from different sources and build up a picture before you can make a educated decision..it doesnt help when people like Michael Gove are not able to have any input in that picture as they dont even know themselves....feels a bit like the blind leading the blind!; ) It's great to have a discussion about something so important without anyone getting personal or rude....thanks again all...

 

[smudgedj]

I agree mate....its a bit like a jigsaw...you just have to take little bits from different sources and build up a picture before you can make a educated decision..it doesnt help when people like Michael Gove are not able to have any input in that picture as they dont even know themselves....feels a bit like the blind leading the blind!; ) It's great to have a discussion about something so important without anyone getting personal or rude....thanks again all...

Do you mean policies after we exit?
I think they mentioned two then got accused of breaking the purdah rules so stopped.
A points based system for immigration and removing VAT on heating costs.

 

[AlgarveBlu]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your note the two things that detract me from the e onomists are:-

1. They probably have self interests at heart when making such predictions.

2. They were spectacularly wrong over the ERM and joining the Euro.

All I can say is, don't always believe everything you're told. It's only speculation and opinion tinted with what's n it for my market sector!

I think the first point you make is a tad paranoid - there are many economists that work for investment banks who in my opinion do tilt their predictions in line with the client investment recommendations that their bank are advocating - the economists being cited here are generally from neutral organisations. We have to accept on the balance of things there will be economic turbulence for a while - it's the gravity of that turbulence that is being debated. It's worth noting that there are a fair view economists who are pro the uk leaving the eu.

There were also loads of economists at the time who said joining the euro was potentially fatal without first creating a fiscal union, but those voices were drowned out under the euphoria of this major achievement of creating a singular currency - no one was going to spoil the party!

An economist will use the data at their disposal and try and draw upon historic likewise events to simulate the likely outcome - the problem is that they can't here as only Greenland have left the eu so no real data to be had then. What will be interesting is how the questions were framed that the economists answered - in economics it only takes a few variants in the question to get a different result from the computer.

If the economists had been asked to predict how the uk's productivity levels will fare on a brexit in 5 years time using a forward projected formula based on the economic performance of the eu in the last 5 years I am fairly certain Gideon would not be shouting from the rooftops as the correlation between the two would be easy to identify for everyone.

You won't find hardly any economists that will back the Eurozone in it's current guise, in fact it's so generally taken that it doesn't work in its current form that they've stopped commenting on it years ago. The most famous case was the economist Sir Christopher Pissarides who won the Nobel prize for economics who initially backed the introduction of the euro but soon realised he had got it badly wrong and he officially withdrew his backing for the euro saying it had created a 'lost generation' and was 'dividing europe' - this was written three years ago and his predictions were spot on so they're not always wrong!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...economist-who-once-backed-currency-union.html

 

[Chippy_boy]

These same experts have been predicting interest rates will start to rise again EVERY YEAR since 2008, so on the back of this people have sought to fix their mortgage rates at a rate higher than they would have got on the standard variable rate. Has it increased in that time, has it fuck. Yer these experts are always independent and right.

Who has gained over that period by people wrongly rushing to fix, oh yes that's right the banks.....

I can't remember whether you are an inner or outer, but I would guess from the apparent cynicism that your an outer.

It seems to me that the decision on this debate is pretty simple really. There's enough data and facts which if pieced together make the two options well differentiated and easy to choose between. The choice boils down to something really quite simple. What slightly muddies the waters is that there's a bunch of people - quite a large bunch, and on both sides actually - who have made their minds up, and are either in complete denial about risks/disadvantages of their chosen option, or they don't want to admit to those risks/disadvantages for fear it will put people off. So we have both sides effectively lying or taking huge liberties with their projections to try to paper over the cracks.

But putting all that to one side, it comes down very simply, to this:

(A) If we leave, we'll put people out of work, raise prices, depress the economy and we'll pretty much all be worse off for the foreseeable future. Probably for the next 5 to 10 year and quite possibly, forever. Not only is this the projection of virtually every independent analyst, frankly it's bloody obvious.

(B) If we stay, we have to accept loss of sovereignty, loss of control of our borders and we have to accept that lots of decisions we might otherwise make for ourselves will be made by other people.

The Brexit camp can deny (A) until they are blue in the face, but that's the bottom line. The remain camp can downplay the immigration issues and loss of sovereignty issues, but that also is the bottom line.

People simply need to decide if they prefer A or B.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Nice attempt at a balanced post, but every single thing in list 'a' is a negative assumption, whearas list 'b' seems to be more factual.
Your list 'a' if it was based on facts should just be the opposite of list 'b' which seems very attractive indeed - perhaps that's why you chose to present it in the way you did.
A 'no brainer' perhaps?

 

[AlgarveBlu]

I can't remember whether you are an inner or outer, but I would guess from the apparent cynicism that your an outer.

It seems to me that the decision on this debate is pretty simple really. There's enough data and facts which if pieced together make the two options well differentiated and easy to choose between. The choice boils down to something really quite simple. What slightly muddies the waters is that there's a bunch of people - quite a large bunch, and on both sides actually - who have made their minds up, and are either in complete denial about risks/disadvantages of their chosen option, or they don't want to admit to those risks/disadvantages for fear it will put people off. So we have both sides effectively lying or taking huge liberties with their projections to try to paper over the cracks.

But putting all that to one side, it comes down very simply, to this:

(A) If we leave, we'll put people out of work, raise prices, depress the economy and we'll pretty much all be worse off for the foreseeable future. Probably for the next 5 to 10 year and quite possibly, forever. Not only is this the projection of virtually every independent analyst, frankly it's bloody obvious.

(B) If we stay, we have to accept loss of sovereignty, loss of control of our borders and we have to accept that lots of decisions we might otherwise make for ourselves will be made by other people.

The Brexit camp can deny (A) until they are blue in the face, but that's the bottom line. The remain camp can downplay the immigration issues and loss of sovereignty issues, but that also is the bottom line.

People simply need to decide if they prefer A or B.

surprised at the post from you chippy - it smacks more of frustration than logical thought. That's the most simplified summarisation I've ever read.

Not even the remain camp have come out with anything as extreme as your scenario A (forever)

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

I can't remember whether you are an inner or outer, but I would guess from the apparent cynicism that your an outer.

It seems to me that the decision on this debate is pretty simple really. There's enough data and facts which if pieced together make the two options well differentiated and easy to choose between. The choice boils down to something really quite simple. What slightly muddies the waters is that there's a bunch of people - quite a large bunch, and on both sides actually - who have made their minds up, and are either in complete denial about risks/disadvantages of their chosen option, or they don't want to admit to those risks/disadvantages for fear it will put people off. So we have both sides effectively lying or taking huge liberties with their projections to try to paper over the cracks.

But putting all that to one side, it comes down very simply, to this:

(A) If we leave, we'll put people out of work, raise prices, depress the economy and we'll pretty much all be worse off for the foreseeable future. Probably for the next 5 to 10 year and quite possibly, forever. Not only is this the projection of virtually every independent analyst, frankly it's bloody obvious.

(B) If we stay, we have to accept loss of sovereignty, loss of control of our borders and we have to accept that lots of decisions we might otherwise make for ourselves will be made by other people.

The Brexit camp can deny (A) until they are blue in the face, but that's the bottom line. The remain camp can downplay the immigration issues and loss of sovereignty issues, but that also is the bottom line.

People simply need to decide if they prefer A or B.

Yes thanks, so forever we are going to be worse with a. Are you in hot tub time machine at the moment?

 

[smudgedj]

I can't remember whether you are an inner or outer, but I would guess from the apparent cynicism that your an outer.

It seems to me that the decision on this debate is pretty simple really. There's enough data and facts which if pieced together make the two options well differentiated and easy to choose between. The choice boils down to something really quite simple. What slightly muddies the waters is that there's a bunch of people - quite a large bunch, and on both sides actually - who have made their minds up, and are either in complete denial about risks/disadvantages of their chosen option, or they don't want to admit to those risks/disadvantages for fear it will put people off. So we have both sides effectively lying or taking huge liberties with their projections to try to paper over the cracks.

But putting all that to one side, it comes down very simply, to this:

(A) If we leave, we'll put people out of work, raise prices, depress the economy and we'll pretty much all be worse off for the foreseeable future. Probably for the next 5 to 10 year and quite possibly, forever. Not only is this the projection of virtually every independent analyst, frankly it's bloody obvious.

(B) If we stay, we have to accept loss of sovereignty, loss of control of our borders and we have to accept that lots of decisions we might otherwise make for ourselves will be made by other people.

The Brexit camp can deny (A) until they are blue in the face, but that's the bottom line. The remain camp can downplay the immigration issues and loss of sovereignty issues, but that also is the bottom line.

People simply need to decide if they prefer A or B.

Not that difficult.

A) Do you want Britain to be a self-governing democracy?
B) Do you want Britain to be a subordinate state of a supreme government for Europe?

People simply need to decide if they prefer A or B

 

[west didsblue]

Saw Gove being taken apart by Faisal Islam on Sky news. No real answers on justification for the benefits of Brexit.
As I said earlier, I'll be voting on economic grounds for what I believe will be best for me and my family in the short to medium term as it's anybody's guess what will happen in the long term. I'll be voting to stay in.

 

[TRUE BLUE NO1]

Nice attempt at a balanced post, but every single thing in list 'a' is a negative assumption, whearas list 'b' seems to be more factual.
Your list 'a' if it was based on facts should just be the opposite of list 'b' which seems very attractive indeed - perhaps that's why you chose to present it in the way you did.
A 'no brainer' perhaps?

I think A and B just shows the "potential" harm to leaving is greater than the potential harm to staying.....it just comes down to which you see is the lesser of 2 evils...I think if most people had to decide between someones job/home "potentially" being safer if they stay and having to give up some control over the country to the EU, then they would do it....The EU has had part control over us for many years, this isnt anything new and most people in day to day life are not effected by it....now this vote is fast approaching people starting to think we weak to want to stay in and not go it alone......Someone mentioned in a post earlier......the argument isnt "IF" leaving will have a negative impact but "HOW MUCH"....even many of the "outs" admit there will be a rough ride ahead if we leave.....but no one knows how bad that will be......and thats where you need to balance out the risks for you and your families and how secure your finances are to help ride the storm...

 

[PragueBlue]

Saw Gove being taken apart by Faisal Islam on Sky news. No real answers on justification for the benefits of Brexit.
As I said earlier, I'll be voting on economic grounds for what I believe will be best for me and my family in the short to medium term as it's anybody's guess what will happen in the long term. I'll be voting to stay in.

Not an accurate impression of what really happened then. It was pretty much the other way around as most who have seen it have agreed.

 

[hgblue]

Saw Gove being taken apart by Faisal Islam on Sky news. No real answers on justification for the benefits of Brexit.
As I said earlier, I'll be voting on economic grounds for what I believe will be best for me and my family in the short to medium term as it's anybody's guess what will happen in the long term. I'll be voting to stay in.

Taken apart my arse. The interviewer looked unnecessarily confrontational and aggressive whilst Gove retained his cool and got his points across with a certain amount of humour and passion. Even the interviewer himself commented afterwards that he was impressed with Gove. Compare and contrast with Cameron's half hearted attempt to defend the indefensible, and I reckon it's been another good couple of days for Brexit.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Taken apart my arse. The interviewer looked unnecessarily confrontational and aggressive whilst Gove retained his cool and got his points across with a certain amount of humour and passion. Even the interviewer himself commented afterwards that he was impressed with Gove. Compare and contrast with Cameron's half hearted attempt to defend the indefensible, and I reckon it's been another good couple of days for Brexit.

Won't be good enough.

We're staying in.

 

[TRUE BLUE NO1]

Saw Gove being taken apart by Faisal Islam on Sky news. No real answers on justification for the benefits of Brexit.
As I said earlier, I'll be voting on economic grounds for what I believe will be best for me and my family in the short to medium term as it's anybody's guess what will happen in the long term. I'll be voting to stay in.

I agree mate!;) short to mid term is the only way any of us can/should plan....goal posts move all the time and no point worrying what "might" happen to the EU in the long term.....The negative impact on the UK economy if we leave will be immediate and will hit us now....thats pretty much the only thing experts on both sides seem to agree on....they just cant agree on how much....just dont think thats a risk many of us want or can afford to take....

 

[AlgarveBlu]

Not an accurate impression of what really happened then. It was pretty much the other way around as most who have seen it have agreed.

This

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Saw Gove being taken apart by Faisal Islam on Sky news. No real answers on justification for the benefits of Brexit.
As I said earlier, I'll be voting on economic grounds for what I believe will be best for me and my family in the short to medium term as it's anybody's guess what will happen in the long term. I'll be voting to stay in.

If you were basing your vote only on the Cameron v gove interview performance I am not sure that is a fair conclusion to reach. It's obviously more complex but gove performed well and Cameron did not.

 

[hgblue]

If you were basing your vote only on the Cameron v gove interview performance I am not sure that is a fair conclusion to reach. It's obviously more complex but gove performed well and Cameron did not.

I watched Cameron and found myself wondering whether his heart is really in it. He's a self confessed euro-sceptic, and has found himself on the wrong side of this argument imo.