Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Yes. The last sentence sums it up - it wouldn't best suit the U.S.Rhossydd":3uctcq6s said:
I don't much care whether it suits the U.S. or not.
Who is in and who is out?
- Thread starter pip1954
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
I don't much care whether it suits the U.S. or not.
Rhossydd
Established Member
Shall we quote what it says correctly;phil.p":2ckbhsrd said:
"It would be better for the U.K. to stay in the E.U. It would also be better for the E.U., because Britain provides political and intellectual balance. Finally, it would be better for the United States, which doesn’t need a major ally — Britain — to go delusional."
Nicely put by someone I know; "Vote Leave = Vote Lemming as the Brexiteers seem hell bent on jumping over the cliff edge with no certain knowledge of what lies on the other side - but the overwhelming chances are it's not going to end well."
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Likewise, you have no idea what lies ahead if we stay - the EU will be a much different place before very long. Just wait til they start stuffing us with another round of charges - Cameron paid the £1.7billion he swore he wasn't going to. If anyone thinks we're going to escape paying for the ongoing Greek tragedy and it's follow ons or the immigrant crisis in Germany (which was supposed to be an economic boon?) they are deluded.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Pretty much since the referendum was called, I've been struck by the difference between 'ordinary people' and what might be termed the 'political classes'. Some of the latter have behaved appallingly, telling what are very close to bare-faced lies. Almost all the 'ordinary people' I've discussed the referendum with have taken it much more seriously; I can recall very few who have resorted to name-calling and personal insult. I think people know deep down that this is something of quite fundamental importance for the country's future, and possibly for Europe's future. Maybe that's why many have not been swayed by narrow arguments on economic or immigration grounds, but want to hear a broader range of views.
If the debate can be summed up in a soundbite, the nearest I've seen is the last two sentences of The Spectator's editorial this week, which I discovered courtesy of Guido Fawkes' blog. They say, "The history of the last two centuries can be summed up in two words: democracy matters. Let's vote to defend it on 23rd June."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/wo ... ks-brexit/
If the debate can be summed up in a soundbite, the nearest I've seen is the last two sentences of The Spectator's editorial this week, which I discovered courtesy of Guido Fawkes' blog. They say, "The history of the last two centuries can be summed up in two words: democracy matters. Let's vote to defend it on 23rd June."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/wo ... ks-brexit/
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
I've come to the conclusion that Leave supporters typically identify an aspect of EU membership as the problem that will be solved to the exclusion of all other impacts. Often the issues are not even problems - eg: the UK has a veto on Turkey membership, visa free travel does not mean no immigration control, the UK does not have to join the Euro now or in the future. For other it is simply an expression of frustration with a Tory/Cameron government.
The economic case to stay is overwhelmingly clear. It is supported by pretty much all quality economic commentators and is intuitively rational. Basing a Leave case on the decision not to join the Euro 15 years ago, and the expectation that deals with EU will be readily forthcoming because Germany sells lot of cars in the UK is fatuous. The Euro debate was 15 years ago, and any deal with the EU will depend on the willingness of all states to agree, not just the Germans.
For some the issue is immigration and stress on services. It is totally within the control of the government to flex spending on NHS and education to fix this - although they seem reluctant to do so (not sure why).
For some it is the impact on jobs. But they UK has just reported the lowest since 2005 unemployment figures. Without immigration there would simply be vacancies - some in critical sectors. Somewhat arrogantly I suggest that those without jobs in the UK mostly either don't have the right skills (technical and social), are working in the black economy, or are too lazy.
For some it is the impact on housing. We need more housing to accommodate a rising population and this puts stress on the countryside. No quick fix to this.
For some it is the impact on wages - but increasing wages of unskilled jobs simply passes the additional cost of living to the rest of us.
For some it sovereignty. A statement of the blindingly obvious is that if we join a club of 27 we inevitably sacrifice control over some issues - as we do with NATO and WTO. We have not sacrificed ultimate sovereignty or we could not have a meaningful referendum.
In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed - other EU members aspire to our example.
I accept that many will be seduced by the Gove and Johnson vision (they don't have a plan). But the world has changed since the sun never set on the empire - we could equally become an unremarkable outpost, stuck in the N.E. Atlantic, our power and influence gradually diminishing as the US, China and the EU bloc dominate financial and world trade affairs.
The economic case to stay is overwhelmingly clear. It is supported by pretty much all quality economic commentators and is intuitively rational. Basing a Leave case on the decision not to join the Euro 15 years ago, and the expectation that deals with EU will be readily forthcoming because Germany sells lot of cars in the UK is fatuous. The Euro debate was 15 years ago, and any deal with the EU will depend on the willingness of all states to agree, not just the Germans.
For some the issue is immigration and stress on services. It is totally within the control of the government to flex spending on NHS and education to fix this - although they seem reluctant to do so (not sure why).
For some it is the impact on jobs. But they UK has just reported the lowest since 2005 unemployment figures. Without immigration there would simply be vacancies - some in critical sectors. Somewhat arrogantly I suggest that those without jobs in the UK mostly either don't have the right skills (technical and social), are working in the black economy, or are too lazy.
For some it is the impact on housing. We need more housing to accommodate a rising population and this puts stress on the countryside. No quick fix to this.
For some it is the impact on wages - but increasing wages of unskilled jobs simply passes the additional cost of living to the rest of us.
For some it sovereignty. A statement of the blindingly obvious is that if we join a club of 27 we inevitably sacrifice control over some issues - as we do with NATO and WTO. We have not sacrificed ultimate sovereignty or we could not have a meaningful referendum.
In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed - other EU members aspire to our example.
I accept that many will be seduced by the Gove and Johnson vision (they don't have a plan). But the world has changed since the sun never set on the empire - we could equally become an unremarkable outpost, stuck in the N.E. Atlantic, our power and influence gradually diminishing as the US, China and the EU bloc dominate financial and world trade affairs.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
In the 1970s the UK was the basket case of Europe - the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??). We joined the EU and our circumstances have been transformed ...
Most of that was after joining the EEC not before. The EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.
Most of that was after joining the EEC not before. The EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.
Eric The Viking
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 6,599
- Reaction score
- 76
stuartpaul":lkabathv said:
It's disingenuous for them to suggest that nine out of ten economists support remain when there was such a dismally low response rate. For those that didn't respond, that's all you can say -- that they didn't respond.
It makes the whole 9/10 statement nonsense though. You can't, for example, say "I stood in the centre of town and shouted at the passers by. Of those who responded 75% supported Remain (actually three people agreed with me and one person called the police)."
With such a low response rate, it's effectively meaningless.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
[quoteThe EU will not dominate world financial and trade affairs - Europe is the only continent on a downward slope.][/quote]
World GDP at the moments shows:
US 24%
EU (incl UK) 22%
China 15%
Japan 6%
UK 4%
Japan, UK, India,Brazil and a few others following closely could be described first division with no real chance of promotion to the premier league. Even if the UK had a growth rater 3% higher than the EU, mathematically it would take more than 50 years to catch up. There is a rather greater probability of India, Brazil or Russia overtaking the UK!
World GDP at the moments shows:
US 24%
EU (incl UK) 22%
China 15%
Japan 6%
UK 4%
Japan, UK, India,Brazil and a few others following closely could be described first division with no real chance of promotion to the premier league. Even if the UK had a growth rater 3% higher than the EU, mathematically it would take more than 50 years to catch up. There is a rather greater probability of India, Brazil or Russia overtaking the UK!
RobinBHM
Established Member
It is certainly true that leaving the eu is a serious concern and not to be ignored. Staying in is also a major concern economically.
An extract from a blog by Andrew Lillico (Chairman of economists UK):
There are two ideas gaining currency in the EU referendum debate that I want to kill off with this post.
The first is that all serious economists agree that Brexit would be economically harmful to the UK.
The second is that there is no serious economic analysis that has not concluded that Brexit would leave the UK permanently and materially poorer.
On the first point, two of the most illustrious economists in Britain are Roger Bootle, Managing Director of Capital Economics, and Gerard Lyons, Economic advisor to the Mayor of London and former Chief Economist of Standard Chartered Bank. Both favour Brexit. Roger Bootle argues that leaving would be neither economically beneficial nor economically harmful. Gerard Lyons argues that after some initial turbulence the UK would grow faster over the medium- to longer-term outside the EU than within.
Neither Roger nor Gerard can be caricatured as some other-worldly academic ideologue. They are both extremely serious economists whose opinions are sought (at considerable expense) by people across the finance sector across the world. They are by no means the only economists favouring Brexit. I happen to be Chairman of Economists for Britain, affiliated to Vote Leave, including a range of economists from left and right of the political spectrum. There are also various other groups, such as the Economist Friends of Brexit (including Ruth Lea, Warwick Lightfoot, Neil MacKinnon and others)
An extract from a blog by Andrew Lillico (Chairman of economists UK):
There are two ideas gaining currency in the EU referendum debate that I want to kill off with this post.
The first is that all serious economists agree that Brexit would be economically harmful to the UK.
The second is that there is no serious economic analysis that has not concluded that Brexit would leave the UK permanently and materially poorer.
On the first point, two of the most illustrious economists in Britain are Roger Bootle, Managing Director of Capital Economics, and Gerard Lyons, Economic advisor to the Mayor of London and former Chief Economist of Standard Chartered Bank. Both favour Brexit. Roger Bootle argues that leaving would be neither economically beneficial nor economically harmful. Gerard Lyons argues that after some initial turbulence the UK would grow faster over the medium- to longer-term outside the EU than within.
Neither Roger nor Gerard can be caricatured as some other-worldly academic ideologue. They are both extremely serious economists whose opinions are sought (at considerable expense) by people across the finance sector across the world. They are by no means the only economists favouring Brexit. I happen to be Chairman of Economists for Britain, affiliated to Vote Leave, including a range of economists from left and right of the political spectrum. There are also various other groups, such as the Economist Friends of Brexit (including Ruth Lea, Warwick Lightfoot, Neil MacKinnon and others)
I think if you believe in democracy there is no alternative to voting out. The EU is actively anti-democracy which is a bit ironic considering that democracy is one of the greatest European achievements.
Brexit means complete control over our national fortunes as opposed to 1/28th of control over an organisation which has only one goal which is the formation of the United States of Europe and be under no illusion: there is no Plan B.
The EU is also corrupt - remember how the accounts never get signed off because they don't know where the money has gone. It is also poorly led by massively overpaid, second rate apparatchiks like Schulz and Juncker and it is generally unaccountable.
Because of its inherently democratic spirit the UK will always be at odds with many member states. I think we could get along well enough with the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and one or two others but we are simply politically incompatible with the rest. The French replaced an absolute monarchy with a more or less absolute presidency albeit coupled with a deliberately weakened parliament, the EU set up being modelled on this. The German political elite seems hell bent on doing away with the notion of Germany, rather like that character Harry Enfield created.
There are also two whopping lies routinely put about in favour of the EU. The biggest is that it is responsible for post-WW2 peace in Europe. This is nonsense as the peace was provided by NATO and for most of that time the EU's predecessor organisations didn't add up to much at all. The second is that leaving would mean a "leap into the unknown" for the UK. This is an absurd notion. For all of our history we have been an outward looking, independently minded international trading nation. Brexit would actually mean a return to business as usual. If we were out we could do our own thing while maintaining friendly relationships with our neighbours and negotiating our own trade deals with anybody we want.
A side effect of Brexit would be to jolt the self-regarding "elites" both at home and abroad into some sort of contact with reality. This could only be of benefit.
Apart from all that the EU is wonderful. :mrgreen:
Brexit means complete control over our national fortunes as opposed to 1/28th of control over an organisation which has only one goal which is the formation of the United States of Europe and be under no illusion: there is no Plan B.
The EU is also corrupt - remember how the accounts never get signed off because they don't know where the money has gone. It is also poorly led by massively overpaid, second rate apparatchiks like Schulz and Juncker and it is generally unaccountable.
Because of its inherently democratic spirit the UK will always be at odds with many member states. I think we could get along well enough with the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and one or two others but we are simply politically incompatible with the rest. The French replaced an absolute monarchy with a more or less absolute presidency albeit coupled with a deliberately weakened parliament, the EU set up being modelled on this. The German political elite seems hell bent on doing away with the notion of Germany, rather like that character Harry Enfield created.
There are also two whopping lies routinely put about in favour of the EU. The biggest is that it is responsible for post-WW2 peace in Europe. This is nonsense as the peace was provided by NATO and for most of that time the EU's predecessor organisations didn't add up to much at all. The second is that leaving would mean a "leap into the unknown" for the UK. This is an absurd notion. For all of our history we have been an outward looking, independently minded international trading nation. Brexit would actually mean a return to business as usual. If we were out we could do our own thing while maintaining friendly relationships with our neighbours and negotiating our own trade deals with anybody we want.
A side effect of Brexit would be to jolt the self-regarding "elites" both at home and abroad into some sort of contact with reality. This could only be of benefit.
Apart from all that the EU is wonderful. :mrgreen:
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
the land of three day weeks, refuse not collected for months, grave digger strikes, woeful public services, high inflation, high mortgage rates, poor quality products (BL etc??Jake":g6thodn6 said:
They were all after joining. Please learn some history.
Terry - Somerset":1ykttu87 said:
Sovereignty.
Actually if we vote Remain we WILL sacrifice sovereignty. Anyone that thinks we can reform the EU from within is delusional. Regardless of whether you like or loathe Cameron and Corbyn, we have the chance to vote them out and influence policy. We have no chance of holding Junker or the other presidents to account. As for the veto, even if we had one, neither Cameron nor Corbyn would ever use it. Both are in favour of an enlarged EU (Cameron said he pave the way from Ankara to Brussels) so Turkey will be allowed in, to be followed shortly after by Kosovo.
Ah Ha I hear you say, we have a veto on future treaty change. Not so, Cameron gave it away in negotiations to "reform" the EU. I had previously thought that in his much vaunted renegotiations he ask for nothing and got most of it. It now transpires that the effective political cost of getting nothing was huge.
See
http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... eturn.html
UK Economy
When we were seduced into joining the common market, it was at a time of protectionist trade policies and the access to a free trade area like the EU was attractive. Over the years the global economy has swung more to a low tariff barriers and ironically, the tariffs for some imports are subject to higher because we are in the EU which seeks to erect tariff barriers.
The economic policies of the EU and the imposition of the Euro have ruined the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. While within the EU those economies will never recover because without control of their currency they cannot devalue nor can they manipulate interest rates to stimulate the economy.
If you want to know what the future holds within the EU have a look at this:-
https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/b ... ort_en.pdf
Page 5 is a real rib tickler
"And finally, towards a Political Union ....... through genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional strengthening. "
Junker talking about "genuine democratic accountability" is a display of unbelievable hypocrisy and Orwellian doublespeak.
Some of you may say that this strategy relates to the Euro zone and that we are not in the Euro, but the Remain vote will be interpreted as a mandate to support the European project. There is no logic to voting to stay in the EU but to remain outside of the Euro as we will get the worst of all worlds, EU constraints, EU army, huge payments to support the project whether we are in the Euro or not, no border control. Cameron and Osbourn are being disingenuous in suggesting that we will be able to insulate the UK from all of this because we won't.
The prospect of an ever expanding European superstate is not a legacy I would wish to leave to my worst enemy. If Junker and his fellow cronies want this, let them get on with it without us.
Vote leave.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I didn't suggest any different - I merely pointed out that what you presented as facts actually were no such thing.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Terry - Somerset":2lexes82 said:
I do agree that the leave campaigners have often used single issues to justify an exit whilst taking the issue out of context.
Immegration will not be solved easily by remain or exit. The UK economy does need Immigration to help with our employment needs, but it wont be easy to cope with continuing immigration. I dont know the solutions but leaving the EU wont create an easy way to resolve this.
The economic case to stay is not overwhelmingly clear at all. Its easy to be clouded by a better the devil you know approach but many leading economists and businessmen believe UK mid and long term growth will be better out.
There is not a correlation between the UK 1970s economy and joining the EU. The economic situation in the 1970s was due to our union bound uncompetitive industries.
The euro debate may have been some years back, but the euro zone problems are a mounting problem that is going to have severe future impact to the eu.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.
Inoffthered":28zsufqo said:
Since most of the examples were EIB loans (or fictitious ones) the answer to this will be found here
http://www.eib.org/projects/regions/eur ... /index.htm
RobinBHM":31jl6e8p said:
Many, many more think the opposite. The economic case for exit is very tenuous at best. The sovereignty and immigration arguments are at least based in some fact (although massively exaggerated by playing on people's fears of German rule, and johnny-foreigner generally, respectively). I think the exit campaign would be a lot more honest if it accepted there would be an economic price, but argued that what they see as the benefits of leaving outweighed it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
