EU referendum

[bugsyblue]

Spot on, very well put. Apparently the claim that the EU costs us 361m a week is wrong. That is our gross contribution. After all the rebates an smoke and mirror stuff we only actually lose 61m per week. I'm assuming the remain campaign expect us to think that is a good thing?

How can anyone make a call on whether losing £61m a week is a good or bad thing when we don't actually know what the financial benefits are of the EU trade agreements. It's very feasible that we leave the EU, thus save £61m a week but actually lose £100m of trade and business contracts per week as a consequence. Equally if we still want to trade with our European partners then the EU will insist we have to abide by certain laws anyway, laws we no longer will get a say on because we aren't a party member, look at Norway and Switzerland!

 

[Chippy_boy]

How can anyone make a call on whether losing £61m a week is a good or bad thing when we don't actually know what the financial benefits are of the EU trade agreements. It's very feasible that we leave the EU, thus save £61m a week but actually lose £100m of trade and business contracts per week as a consequence. Equally if we still want to trade with our European partners then the EU will insist we have to abide by certain laws anyway, laws we no longer will get a say on because we aren't a party member, look at Norway and Switzerland!

I think you'll find your straightforward logic falls on deaf ears here mate. It's not what the Outers want to hear, is it.

 

[CityStu]

How can anyone make a call on whether losing £61m a week is a good or bad thing when we don't actually know what the financial benefits are of the EU trade agreements. It's very feasible that we leave the EU, thus save £61m a week but actually lose £100m of trade and business contracts per week as a consequence. Equally if we still want to trade with our European partners then the EU will insist we have to abide by certain laws anyway, laws we no longer will get a say on because we aren't a party member, look at Norway and Switzerland!

Then why aren't the In campaign detailing exactly how we benefit by staying in, instead of suggesting what we may lose if we vote Out. If they can categorically show that being in the EU saves us £40m a week (as in your example) then they'd have a very convincing argument. Trouble is, they can't.

 

[bugsyblue]

I think you'll find your straightforward logic falls on deaf ears here mate. It's not what the Outers want to hear, is it.

It's frustrating but my parents are the same! They read the Daily Mail and read about the influx of migrants and think that's the cause of all our problems and consequently blame the EU because they have a very good human rights law of freedom of movement for workers. They site jobs going to foreign workers without recognising unemployment apart from a small spike during the recession has stayed pretty constant meaning foreigners aren't taking our jobs, they site new build flats being clustered and having less space without recognising no government has passed laws to control this, to control house prices or rent (if NY can have rental controls, in the most capitalist society in the world, strange how London can't!) and then they talk about services being stretched again without laying any blame on government, who have cut services despite increased taxation due to increase population.

Our problems aren't migrants. They are political. And staying in or moving out of the EU isn't suddenly going to change the problems we face in this country.

 

[bugsyblue]

Then why aren't the In campaign detailing exactly how we benefit by staying in, instead of suggesting what we may lose if we vote Out. If they can categorically show that being in the EU saves us £40m a week (as in your example) then they'd have a very convincing argument. Trouble is, they can't.

Mate no one can, it's extremely difficult to calculate. The same argument can be said of the out campaign, why don't they prove we will be financially better off!

 

[CityStu]

Mate no one can, it's extremely difficult to calculate. The same argument can be said of the out campaign, why don't they prove we will be financially better off!

At least in the Out campaign, it is the future they have to predict - foreseeing potential trade partners, suggesting plausible trade deals with those partners and the amount of trade that would happen with each of them.

Telling us how much we trade with the EU and how much that would cost us if we weren't an EU country seems extremely simple by comparison.

 

[bugsyblue]

At least in the Out campaign, it is the future they have to predict - foreseeing potential trade partners, suggesting plausible trade deals with those partners and the amount of trade that would happen with each of them.

Telling us how much we trade with the EU and how much that would cost us if we weren't an EU country seems extremely simple by comparison.

So if it's that simple, and clearly as an outer I'm guessing you feel we will be financially better off leaving the EU, why then, in your opinion, have the Out campaign not made these calculations and shown the world how our contribution to the EU outweighs the trade benefits? I mean surely that would tip the campaign favourable in the direction of Out? I'd certainly change my vote.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Yes the United States has it all wrong, spending more on education than anywhere else in the world and producing more top scientists from 8 out of the world's top 10 universities. What a fuck up their system is. Bring me asbestos-riddled 1960's prefabs any time.

You're a 1% kinda guy.

Your happy servility always makes me smile.

 

[CityStu]

So if it's that simple, and clearly as an outer I'm guessing you feel we will be financially better off leaving the EU, why then, in your opinion, have the Out campaign not made these calculations and shown the world how our contribution to the EU outweighs the trade benefits? I mean surely that would tip the campaign favourable in the direction of Out? I'd certainly change my vote.

I'm not certain we will be better off financially - my reasons for supporting Out are that the EU isn't in our best interests politically. I think there's a chance we might be better off economically and I think that the chances of any drop in the economy being completely unmanageable are tiny. The referendum wouldn't be on the table if the effect of one of the options was economic destruction.

 

[EalingBlue2]

That's a good point Ealing. Years back (perhaps 20) I argued that the EU could never work because unlike in the US where you have a properly functioning central government (<cough<), they also have a common currency, complete free movement of labour enabled by no borders and a common language. I argued that these thing were a necessary requirement if an EU aiming for full political union was to be viable. A single currency brings huge problems because it necessitates a single interest rate which may be wholly inappropriate for certain "geographies", with differing rates of growth, unemployment, wages etc. But it can be made to work if you have a central government willing to divert funding to different areas as required and free movement of labour to enable people to skill up and move.

It seems perhaps 20 years on that we are closer to that than I ever thought we would be. Of course it's not where many people (probably most people) in the UK want to go. But it's not impossible that that could work now.

There are a lot of people in Texas who still don't really believe themselves anything other than Texan.