EU referendum

EU referendum

  • In

    Votes: 503 47.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 547 52.1%

  • Total voters
    1,050
Status
Not open for further replies.
And what about the millions of pounds being spent by the Sun, Times, Telegraph, Mail and Express to spread misinformation? Probably much more than £9.3m. If I was swimming against that shit tide, I want to put out something to counter it.
They are all independent commercial organisations spending their own money, you may not like what they publish but people pay to read it.
They are not subsidised by the taxpayer.
If you want to swim against that shit tide try getting more people to read the Mirror and Guardian, although I feel the shit tide will be even stickier.
 
They are suggesting what I do by presenting the case of staying in the EU in a biased manner. Yes, people should do their own research but many won't.

Tough cookies. A majority of voters at the last GE voted for a referendum so a referendum we shall have. It's obviously a huge issue so it gets airtime, as do the people who are passionate about either cause. I'm sorry that you don't like their faces but I find that incredibly trivial in the face of a democratic decision.

And what if we'd save more by not being in the EU? The In campaign are awfully fond of presenting their opinions as facts and by your comment, it seems endemic.

Perhaps the In campaign are so fond of presenting their opinions as fact because they are facts. Here's a sample of reports and Studies:

Open Europe - "According to Open Europe's comprehensive new report, UK GDP could be 2.2% lower in 2030 if Britain leaves the EU and fails to strike a deal with the EU or reverts into protectionism. In a best case scenario, under which the UK manages to enter into liberal trade arrangements with the EU and the rest of the world, whilst pursuing large-scale deregulation at home, Britain could be better off by 1.6% of GDP in 2030. However, a far more realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030, in scenarios where Britain mixes policy approaches."

Centre For European Reform - "Eurosceptics are wrong to say that the EU off ers little market access for a good deal of red tape, or that it constrains Britain’s trade with fastgrowing economies outside Europe. The EU has no tariff s and quotas on internal trade, while common rules have further reduced trade costs. These policies work: Britain’s membership of the EU has led to increased trade with the other member-states. At the same time, there is no evidence that membership of the EU constrains Britain’s trade with the rest of the world."

LSE Centre for Economic Perormance - "The economic consequences for the UK from leaving the EU are complex. But reduced integration with EU countries is likely to cost the UK economy far more than is gained from lower contributions to the EU budget. Static losses due to lower trade with the EU would reduce UK GDP by between 1.1% in an optimistic scenario and 3.1% in a pessimistic one. The losses due to lower FDI, less skilled immigration, and the dynamic consequences of reduced trade could also be substantial. Staying in the EU may cause political trouble for the major parties; but if the UK leaves the EU, the economic trouble will be double."

Global Counsel - " The impact of Brexit on British businesses, the UK economy and wider British interests would be severe and felt across multiple channels. Both the path and the endpoint, in terms of the new relationship between the UK and the rest of the EU, would be uncertain, compounding the costs to the UK."

Centre for European Policy Studies - "A large financial centre like the City requires a large single market and/or requires openness towards other economies. But those voting in the UK referendum may not necessarily be aware of the importance of this interconnectedness and what it means for the UK economy. Large parts of British public opinion, especially when dealing with perceived threats from abroad, seem to prefer isolationism as the best way forward. This stance will be detrimental to the future strength of the City."

CBI - " Leaving EU would cause a serious shock to UK economy - new PwC analysis. Brexit could cost UK economy £100 billion and 950,000 jobs by 2020"

Centre for Economic Policy research - " Across a range of scenarios, Brexit leads to lower income per capita, but the magnitude of the loss depends on what trade policies the UK adopts post-Brexit. To minimise the economic costs of Brexit, the UK would have to remain closely integrated into the Single Market."
 
Read the story by all means, its one of many that puts the whole thing down to coincidence and conspiracy theory's, he is ex Bloomberg ;0)
 
Perhaps the In campaign are so fond of presenting their opinions as fact because they are facts.

There are no facts. Whatever happens, in or out, can only be speculated on.

Open Europe - "According to Open Europe's comprehensive new report, UK GDP could be 2.2% lower in 2030 if Britain leaves the EU and fails to strike a deal with the EU or reverts into protectionism. In a best case scenario, under which the UK manages to enter into liberal trade arrangements with the EU and the rest of the world, whilst pursuing large-scale deregulation at home, Britain could be better off by 1.6% of GDP in 2030. However, a far more realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030, in scenarios where Britain mixes policy approaches."

So the likeliest change in GDP is pretty much neutral? Assuming a normal distribution, there's a 43% chance that our GDP will increase outside of the EU. That 7% to make it completely level may well be more than accommodated by many peoples' dislike of the EU for non-economic reasons (such as uncontrolled immigration).

Centre For European Reform - "Eurosceptics are wrong to say that the EU off ers little market access for a good deal of red tape, or that it constrains Britain’s trade with fastgrowing economies outside Europe. The EU has no tariff s and quotas on internal trade, while common rules have further reduced trade costs. These policies work: Britain’s membership of the EU has led to increased trade with the other member-states. At the same time, there is no evidence that membership of the EU constrains Britain’s trade with the rest of the world."

Of course it does. The EU has pretty stringent trading criteria with many countries around the world do not, can not or will not comply with (the EU has next to no trade with Africa). If, upon exit, Britain enforces less strict trading criteria then that opens up new markets, many of which could be much cheaper than trading with the EU.

LSE Centre for Economic Perormance - "The economic consequences for the UK from leaving the EU are complex. But reduced integration with EU countries is likely to cost the UK economy far more than is gained from lower contributions to the EU budget. Static losses due to lower trade with the EU would reduce UK GDP by between 1.1% in an optimistic scenario and 3.1% in a pessimistic one. The losses due to lower FDI, less skilled immigration, and the dynamic consequences of reduced trade could also be substantial. Staying in the EU may cause political trouble for the major parties; but if the UK leaves the EU, the economic trouble will be double."

That makes no mention at all of the likely increase in non-EU trade that would come with any drop in EU trade (if there was a drop).

Global Counsel - " The impact of Brexit on British businesses, the UK economy and wider British interests would be severe and felt across multiple channels. Both the path and the endpoint, in terms of the new relationship between the UK and the rest of the EU, would be uncertain, compounding the costs to the UK."

Can you point out which part of this isn't unsubstantiated scaremongering? I'm sure the EU does work very well for big business as mass immigration keeps low end wages low.

Centre for European Policy Studies - "A large financial centre like the City requires a large single market and/or requires openness towards other economies. But those voting in the UK referendum may not necessarily be aware of the importance of this interconnectedness and what it means for the UK economy. Large parts of British public opinion, especially when dealing with perceived threats from abroad, seem to prefer isolationism as the best way forward. This stance will be detrimental to the future strength of the City."

An exit needn't mean that we aren't open to trading with the EU or isolationist. It simply means that we don't want to be tied to their economies politically - a facet that no other trade agreement in the world employs.

CBI - " Leaving EU would cause a serious shock to UK economy - new PwC analysis. Brexit could cost UK economy £100 billion and 950,000 jobs by 2020"


I'm sure it could in a worst case scenario, but the best case scenario isn't provided.

Centre for Economic Policy research - " Across a range of scenarios, Brexit leads to lower income per capita, but the magnitude of the loss depends on what trade policies the UK adopts post-Brexit. To minimise the economic costs of Brexit, the UK would have to remain closely integrated into the Single Market."

Is the range of scenarios they considered the entire range of scenarios? Canada, for example, have recently negotiated a trade agreement with the EU where 99% of trade carries no fee, yet they don't have to be tied in politically or pay for the privilege.
 
@CityStu. I admire your attempts to pick apart what are essentially quotations from conclusions of massive reports and studies. In many cases the best case and worst case scenarios have all been tested and they all conclude that it would be bad for the UK to leave. We are talking about some of the brightest economists, politicos and policy researchers here, not some Op Ed piece by Richard Littlejohn or Kelvin MacKenzie. The overwhelming evidence is out there for the IN campaign. Just google "Brexit Studies" and it all comes up.
 
Farage, Johnson, IDS, Gove, Bone, Reese-Mogg, Redwood and the sleazy attention-seeking Hamiltons and George Galloway.

They are the OUT campaigners.

Nuff said!
 
@CityStu. I admire your attempts to pick apart what are essentially quotations from conclusions of massive reports and studies. In many cases the best case and worst case scenarios have all been tested and they all conclude that it would be bad for the UK to leave. We are talking about some of the brightest economists, politicos and policy researchers here, not some Op Ed piece by Richard Littlejohn or Kelvin MacKenzie. The overwhelming evidence is out there for the IN campaign. Just google "Brexit Studies" and it all comes up.

In my job I create statistical reports and because of that I know full well that you can make stats say whatever you want them to say. Lies, damn lies and statistics y'know.

What would have been useful was a government produced, impartial document listing the pros and cons of EU membership, quantified as best as possible. That would have been worth the £9.3m.
 
In my job I create statistical reports and because of that I know full well that you can make stats say whatever you want them to say. Lies, damn lies and statistics y'know.

What would have been useful was a government produced, impartial document listing the pros and cons of EU membership, quantified as best as possible. That would have been worth the £9.3m.

So you're saying that 7 different (plus many more unmentioned) politically independent institutions all cooked the books to make the statistics match a pro EU position?

The leaflet is what it is, in my view it is an inconsequential sum of money in the context of the massive implications of an OUT vote. We're obviously going to disagree on that, fair enough.
 
So you're saying that 7 different (plus many more unmentioned) politically independent institutions all cooked the books to make the statistics match a pro EU position?

The leaflet is what it is, in my view it is an inconsequential sum of money in the context of the massive implications of an OUT vote. We're obviously going to disagree on that, fair enough.

You don't need to cook the books, you only need to show the information that supports the view that you're trying to promote. I'd also say it's almost certain that pro-exit studies will use exactly the same philosophy.

In the grand scheme of things it's not the money, it's the principle. It's also a very large sum of money in the context of what both sides of the campaign are supposed to be receiving of the public purse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.