B
Bonzo
Guest
But then it's not necessarily a fact, just someone's opinionThats what google is for
#Brexit
- Thread starter Fronty
- Start date
elmooreo
Well-Known Member
Does the fact that just about every top level independent economist and also all the independently funded non partisan "think tanks" are all saying that to leave would cause Armageddon not concern all you brexiteers? This seems to just get brushed off as "short term adjustments" by most of you. We could be talking years and years of recession and house market crashes etc...
Last edited:
spinksy123
Active Member
B
Bonzo
Guest
In the spirit of fairness - I asked for some sources and you responded so I'll meet you halfway!
Hard work after a 10 hour day though
OK so firstly to respond to your 'facts':
This figure references a report by Business for Britain http://www.businessforbritain.org which is campaigning for the Leave camp. That doesn't make them wrong but it does already suggest some bias.Without having access to the actual report, its difficult to check these numbers but the BBC are running a very useful for/against series and they see the numbers like this : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36420140 - you can also see that many other countries in the EU pay more per person than the UK does.
Let's not forget that if we wanted to stay in the single market we would still have to pay the EU. Switzerland and Norway still have to pay their membership fees but they have much less input into the rules that they have to follow.
I can't find any reference to this story and I really doubt it exists as £100M is a ridiculously small number in terms of our GDP even if that was in 1 year. We pay £361M/week anyway so it would mean about 2 days extra cost over 5 years. Still a lot of money to me and you but hardly a massive increase if you look at the bigger picture. To add some balance to this as we have referenced a LEAVE group, there's this link:
http://press.strongerin.co.uk/post/...rope-responds-to-100m-in-eu?is_related_post=1 - that the EU are to build a new hospital in Birmingham costing....£108M. Of course the same argument could be made that they are biased too but lets present a balanced argument
This 'fact' mostly comes from a Daily Express article and is a quote from Nigel Farage. This is his opinion. He doesn't provide any evidence to back this up and come on - we can't compare the state of the economy in 1973 and now and draw any conclusion. Maybe the UK economy would be in an even worse state. Its all speculation. There are plenty of other reasons why Norway/Switzerland and Iceland might be thriving other than having to pay bailout costs. Again this is an opinion not a fact.
Actual story : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36414761
This is misleading - The Leave camp say they want the freedom to be able to reduce VAT not that they WILL reduce it. Given that VAT is now 20% its hardly a big deal that we could only reduce it to 5% is it? Do you really think the future UK government would reduce VAT to 0% given the current economic climate? Come on!
To further illustrate how unlikely this case would be is a quote from the Leave camp:
"Vote Leave's Chris Grayling dismissed the figures as "a complete fallacy" and "absurd mathematics", saying his side had been merely illustrating what could be done if the UK's contributions to Brussels were clawed back."
As I mentioned in an earlier post this independent think tank (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/brexit-role-migration-upcoming-eu-referendum) feels that the number of migrants who will come to the UK will be more or less the same whether or not we are in the EU. However being IN the EU means that we can share information about monsters like these and be able to track them across Europe. This might not be possible or as easy if we leave.
LOL! Which Thinktank is this from? The only reference I can find is a Facebook page called 'Battle for Britain'. Returning to the BBC link earlier mentioned we get £4.4bn back from the EU in subsidies plus:
"Then we get a further £4.6bn back, mostly for agricultural subsidies and development funds for poorer regions. And the EU spends about £1.4bn a year in the UK private sector." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36420140
In terms of why we should stay:
I keep going back to this article http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/brexit-role-migration-upcoming-eu-referendum
but its long so let me summarise:
On top of these factors - for those of us that like to travel, we will have less freedom to travel across Europe, potentially face higher airfares and visa restrictions and lose the rights to live and work in the EU that we currently have.
EU is not perfect and I'm not pretending it doesn't need to be improved but IMHO leaving will be significantly worse for the UK.
I realise this will probably not change your mind but you asked for my reasons to stay.....
Here's to bumping into you on the dance floor in Ibiza sometime soon. I'll no doubt be making much less sense then
J
Hard work after a 10 hour day though
OK so firstly to respond to your 'facts':
- Britain recieves just 49p of every £1 into the EU (telegraph)
This figure references a report by Business for Britain http://www.businessforbritain.org which is campaigning for the Leave camp. That doesn't make them wrong but it does already suggest some bias.Without having access to the actual report, its difficult to check these numbers but the BBC are running a very useful for/against series and they see the numbers like this : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36420140 - you can also see that many other countries in the EU pay more per person than the UK does.
Let's not forget that if we wanted to stay in the single market we would still have to pay the EU. Switzerland and Norway still have to pay their membership fees but they have much less input into the rules that they have to follow.
- Britain will pay £100M more to the EU over the next 5 years (telegraph)
I can't find any reference to this story and I really doubt it exists as £100M is a ridiculously small number in terms of our GDP even if that was in 1 year. We pay £361M/week anyway so it would mean about 2 days extra cost over 5 years. Still a lot of money to me and you but hardly a massive increase if you look at the bigger picture. To add some balance to this as we have referenced a LEAVE group, there's this link:
http://press.strongerin.co.uk/post/...rope-responds-to-100m-in-eu?is_related_post=1 - that the EU are to build a new hospital in Birmingham costing....£108M. Of course the same argument could be made that they are biased too but lets present a balanced argument
- Norway,Iceland and switzerland are thriving because they are not encountered by EU bail out costs, before the UK entered the EU unemployment stood at 2.6%, it is now 5.6% (telegraph)
This 'fact' mostly comes from a Daily Express article and is a quote from Nigel Farage. This is his opinion. He doesn't provide any evidence to back this up and come on - we can't compare the state of the economy in 1973 and now and draw any conclusion. Maybe the UK economy would be in an even worse state. Its all speculation. There are plenty of other reasons why Norway/Switzerland and Iceland might be thriving other than having to pay bailout costs. Again this is an opinion not a fact.
- It has been suggested that VAT fuel should be from 5% to 0. But 5% is the minimum allowed under EU law. (Bbc)
Actual story : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36414761
This is misleading - The Leave camp say they want the freedom to be able to reduce VAT not that they WILL reduce it. Given that VAT is now 20% its hardly a big deal that we could only reduce it to 5% is it? Do you really think the future UK government would reduce VAT to 0% given the current economic climate? Come on!
To further illustrate how unlikely this case would be is a quote from the Leave camp:
"Vote Leave's Chris Grayling dismissed the figures as "a complete fallacy" and "absurd mathematics", saying his side had been merely illustrating what could be done if the UK's contributions to Brussels were clawed back."
- Government estimates their is 13k trafficking victims here in the UK due to EU open borders (bbc)
As I mentioned in an earlier post this independent think tank (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/brexit-role-migration-upcoming-eu-referendum) feels that the number of migrants who will come to the UK will be more or less the same whether or not we are in the EU. However being IN the EU means that we can share information about monsters like these and be able to track them across Europe. This might not be possible or as easy if we leave.
- The EU commits €267M to denmark, €129 to Estonia, €284.6 to Germany for fishing and aquaculture alone. Nothing for the UK. (Thinktank)
LOL! Which Thinktank is this from? The only reference I can find is a Facebook page called 'Battle for Britain'. Returning to the BBC link earlier mentioned we get £4.4bn back from the EU in subsidies plus:
"Then we get a further £4.6bn back, mostly for agricultural subsidies and development funds for poorer regions. And the EU spends about £1.4bn a year in the UK private sector." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36420140
In terms of why we should stay:
I keep going back to this article http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/brexit-role-migration-upcoming-eu-referendum
but its long so let me summarise:
- 'The best available evidence suggests the underlying drivers of migration to the United Kingdom are not likely to change dramatically.....A conservative estimate is that the United Kingdom would continue to receive an inflow of 500,000 or more immigrants per year, with annual net migration above 200,000....irregular migration would probably increase in the short and longer term, most likely through visa overstays and from Eastern Europe' - so we benefit nothing in terms of migration leaving Europe which is a key issue in the decision of many people to leave.
- 'The best available independent economic analyses suggest negative impacts on GDP and productivity, with resulting short- and long-term effects on the government’s fiscal targets. The pain would not be shared equally. Businesses and public services with a heavy reliance on migrant labor (e.g., agriculture and hospitality sectors, as well as health and social care) would find it challenging to recruit necessary workers' - so economically we will be significantly worse off with severe staff shortages and a very high likelihood of a further recession.
- 'UK restrictions on free movement almost inevitably would entail an EU response, including a significant penalty when negotiating any new trade agreements with the United Kingdom.' - so we would struggle to re-negotiate trade deals with Europe.
- 'EU deportation agreements also would no longer apply, making it difficult for the United Kingdom to return unauthorized migrants to certain countries—at a time when irregular migration likely would increase' - so we will have more migrants and less chance to deport them. Surely the opposite of what the Leave camp wanted!
On top of these factors - for those of us that like to travel, we will have less freedom to travel across Europe, potentially face higher airfares and visa restrictions and lose the rights to live and work in the EU that we currently have.
EU is not perfect and I'm not pretending it doesn't need to be improved but IMHO leaving will be significantly worse for the UK.
I realise this will probably not change your mind but you asked for my reasons to stay.....
Here's to bumping into you on the dance floor in Ibiza sometime soon. I'll no doubt be making much less sense then
J
Nostalgic
No longer active
Fair play for getting back to me. The telegraph link was dated 3/12/14In the spirit of fairness - I asked for some sources and you responded so I'll meet you halfway!
Hard work after a 10 hour day though
OK so firstly to respond to your 'facts':
- Britain recieves just 49p of every £1 into the EU (telegraph)
This figure references a report by Business for Britain http://www.businessforbritain.org which is campaigning for the Leave camp. That doesn't make them wrong but it does already suggest some bias.Without having access to the actual report, its difficult to check these numbers but the BBC are running a very useful for/against series and they see the numbers like this : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36420140 - you can also see that many other countries in the EU pay more per person than the UK does.
Let's not forget that if we wanted to stay in the single market we would still have to pay the EU. Switzerland and Norway still have to pay their membership fees but they have much less input into the rules that they have to follow.
- Britain will pay £100M more to the EU over the next 5 years (telegraph)
I can't find any reference to this story and I really doubt it exists as £100M is a ridiculously small number in terms of our GDP even if that was in 1 year. We pay £361M/week anyway so it would mean about 2 days extra cost over 5 years. Still a lot of money to me and you but hardly a massive increase if you look at the bigger picture. To add some balance to this as we have referenced a LEAVE group, there's this link:
http://press.strongerin.co.uk/post/...rope-responds-to-100m-in-eu?is_related_post=1 - that the EU are to build a new hospital in Birmingham costing....£108M. Of course the same argument could be made that they are biased too but lets present a balanced argument
- Norway,Iceland and switzerland are thriving because they are not encountered by EU bail out costs, before the UK entered the EU unemployment stood at 2.6%, it is now 5.6% (telegraph)
This 'fact' mostly comes from a Daily Express article and is a quote from Nigel Farage. This is his opinion. He doesn't provide any evidence to back this up and come on - we can't compare the state of the economy in 1973 and now and draw any conclusion. Maybe the UK economy would be in an even worse state. Its all speculation. There are plenty of other reasons why Norway/Switzerland and Iceland might be thriving other than having to pay bailout costs. Again this is an opinion not a fact.
- It has been suggested that VAT fuel should be from 5% to 0. But 5% is the minimum allowed under EU law. (Bbc)
Actual story : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36414761
This is misleading - The Leave camp say they want the freedom to be able to reduce VAT not that they WILL reduce it. Given that VAT is now 20% its hardly a big deal that we could only reduce it to 5% is it? Do you really think the future UK government would reduce VAT to 0% given the current economic climate? Come on!
To further illustrate how unlikely this case would be is a quote from the Leave camp:
"Vote Leave's Chris Grayling dismissed the figures as "a complete fallacy" and "absurd mathematics", saying his side had been merely illustrating what could be done if the UK's contributions to Brussels were clawed back."
- Government estimates their is 13k trafficking victims here in the UK due to EU open borders (bbc)
As I mentioned in an earlier post this independent think tank (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/brexit-role-migration-upcoming-eu-referendum) feels that the number of migrants who will come to the UK will be more or less the same whether or not we are in the EU. However being IN the EU means that we can share information about monsters like these and be able to track them across Europe. This might not be possible or as easy if we leave.
- The EU commits €267M to denmark, €129 to Estonia, €284.6 to Germany for fishing and aquaculture alone. Nothing for the UK. (Thinktank)
LOL! Which Thinktank is this from? The only reference I can find is a Facebook page called 'Battle for Britain'. Returning to the BBC link earlier mentioned we get £4.4bn back from the EU in subsidies plus:
"Then we get a further £4.6bn back, mostly for agricultural subsidies and development funds for poorer regions. And the EU spends about £1.4bn a year in the UK private sector." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36420140
In terms of why we should stay:
I keep going back to this article http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/brexit-role-migration-upcoming-eu-referendum
but its long so let me summarise:
There's plenty more in there if you want to have a read.
- 'The best available evidence suggests the underlying drivers of migration to the United Kingdom are not likely to change dramatically.....A conservative estimate is that the United Kingdom would continue to receive an inflow of 500,000 or more immigrants per year, with annual net migration above 200,000....irregular migration would probably increase in the short and longer term, most likely through visa overstays and from Eastern Europe' - so we benefit nothing in terms of migration leaving Europe which is a key issue in the decision of many people to leave.
- 'The best available independent economic analyses suggest negative impacts on GDP and productivity, with resulting short- and long-term effects on the government’s fiscal targets. The pain would not be shared equally. Businesses and public services with a heavy reliance on migrant labor (e.g., agriculture and hospitality sectors, as well as health and social care) would find it challenging to recruit necessary workers' - so economically we will be significantly worse off with severe staff shortages and a very high likelihood of a further recession.
- 'UK restrictions on free movement almost inevitably would entail an EU response, including a significant penalty when negotiating any new trade agreements with the United Kingdom.' - so we would struggle to re-negotiate trade deals with Europe.
- 'EU deportation agreements also would no longer apply, making it difficult for the United Kingdom to return unauthorized migrants to certain countries—at a time when irregular migration likely would increase' - so we will have more migrants and less chance to deport them. Surely the opposite of what the Leave camp wanted!
On top of these factors - for those of us that like to travel, we will have less freedom to travel across Europe, potentially face higher airfares and visa restrictions and lose the rights to live and work in the EU that we currently have.
EU is not perfect and I'm not pretending it doesn't need to be improved but IMHO leaving will be significantly worse for the UK.
I realise this will probably not change your mind but you asked for my reasons to stay.....
Here's to bumping into you on the dance floor in Ibiza sometime soon. I'll no doubt be making much less sense then
J
i think we all want the same thing in the end but people have their own opinions and ways of thinking. I will still vote Leave i'm yet to come across a person in the flesh with facts and positives in remaining so thanks for taking the time out to tell me, what will be will be
mashednlovingit
Well-Known Member
Bollocks Elmooreo. I couldn't give a hoot what the economists or think tanks say. They were wrong in the past (ERM, GB potentially joining the Euro and the recent recession) and they will be wrong now.
What I do care about is what our Business leaders have to say. After all they are the one's who will be ensuring we continue growing. For example the Lord that owns JCB sent all his staff a letter yesterday advising he would be voting to leave. He originally voted for us to join the common market but now thinks we should leave. The reason? Because he voted for an economic not a political union which is what the EU has become.
Last edited:
elmooreo
Well-Known Member
If we leave and you are right I'll be the first to say fair play and shake your hand. I just worry that people - not just you - aren't fully aware of what this could mean...and it is the poor and most vulnerable people that could lose their jobs and be hit hardest.
Hope everyones tuned into ITV right now
I have to say ive never seen anything like it. Literally every point counter argued with different figures / reports. Its bonkers. As long as everyone votes and gets involved in seeking out information on both sides then its been a positive thing regardless of outcome.
And i cant stress enough how good it is to have arguing back on spotlight!
I have to say ive never seen anything like it. Literally every point counter argued with different figures / reports. Its bonkers. As long as everyone votes and gets involved in seeking out information on both sides then its been a positive thing regardless of outcome.
And i cant stress enough how good it is to have arguing back on spotlight!
Last edited:
elmooreo
Well-Known Member
Exactly that I thought mate
mashednlovingit
Well-Known Member
Bang on fella. I've written an article today on the potential negative effects on the economy today (for the average reader) and I am as strong a vote leave campaigner as the next man! What I am suggesting is that we must work quick to agree a free trade agreement with the EU (within two years) otherwise we will go on the disasterous WTO tariffs.
elmooreo
Well-Known Member
If we leave, that won't be entirely in our control, will it? Why would the EU be in a hurry to renegotiate with us having just voted to leave? Are we more important to the EU than the EU is to us? Are we really that arrogant? What leverage will we have in these negotiations? People bang on about Switzerland and Norway, we don't have anywhere near the degree of leverage that they enjoy with trade negotiations. I still feel there would be lots of uncertainty that is beyond our control and hasn't been fully accounted for, or at the very least, underestimated.