Brexit |OT| UK Referendum on EU Membership - 23 June 2016
- Thread starter QuicheFontaine
- Start date
- Status
FlammableD
Banned
Gove says people in this country have had enough of experts
then
that's how
ClosingADoor
Member
You do know that the stock market is tied a bit to peoples retirements and such? So if I were one of those, I would listen to people who make money there since that is good for me.
So would you be more inclined to listen to experts like economist Nouriel Roubini, who did predict the 2008 crash?
Yes, and for those people who retire in a few years, I can not promise their pensions wont be a bit shit, just like my fathers dropped like a stone in 2008.....
Crap happens you know...you can not say the stock market wont do another 2008 in 5 years can you?
That's surely no reason to go looking for a crash?
I have respect for him, but no one listened to him in 2008 did they...but yes in answer to your question...his opinion I listen to.
FlammableD
Banned
So who would you suggest we trust to forecast the market instead of the people who's job it is to forecast the market?
I see where this is going...
Then you should read this: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ec...t-uk-much-better-off-inside-the-eu-2016-06-21
milanbaros
Member?
Inability to precisely predict the future is no justification to actively do something you expect will be harmful to people.
But neither is it a reason to stay, I always said Kabouter I expect 20 years of poor economy.... in reality it wont be that long, but worse case scenario
But like I said to my wife, the country needs a reset, we need to turn on and off and get things right this time
PJV3
Member
Not everyone wants the same things, what is right?
no, but we dont know do we? sure for 2 weeks the stock market will flip out, Osborne even refused to rule out blocking trading on Friday if we vote leave...
it will come back, it always does
milanbaros
Member?
How does 20 years of sluggish economic performance, increased inflation and a decrease in the stock market cap cause a reset? It won't be a revolution, it will be just like now for most people, but they will be worse off.
Psychotext
Member
He said he'd listen... but will he hear?
HandsomeCharles
Member
A lot of the time I believe its down to how they are treated by others. If someone appears and gives an opinion or viewpoint contrary to the common consensus, it tends to be the case that that person will be met with some degree of hostility. I see it happening here in this thread, and Ive been on the receiving end of it myself both online and offline.
They then become the butt of jokes, and people jump at the chance to discredit or challenge them. That person is then instantly put on the defensive and in a lot of cases feels the need to stand their ground, because even though theyve been presented with X,Y and Z evidence, why on earth would they want to change sides to be with the people that only moments ago were being asshats towards them?
I think the approach is very often wrong. Rather than saying Thats just flat out false. Heres why: (or words to that effect with the aggressive connotations) the approach should be more in the lines of Ok, but have you heard about this?. The key is in letting that person change their views by themselves. Sometimes you might need to give a little encouragement, but make it clear to them that youre not trying to belittle them or ridicule them, you just think that they perhaps missed something out that could be pretty important, or that something new has come to light that they might not have seen yet.
Its like I said to my friend yesterday who is intending to vote for Leave You can vote for whatever you think is best, but just make that if you do have any assumptions about how things are going to pan out you make sure theres some kind of evidence backing them up.
milanbaros
Member?
To a level much lower than what it could be if economic growth was higher. So you wipe potentially billions off people's pensions.
You talk so flippantly about such devastating events.
Well, he seems to have. He just says he's willing to deal with a very long period of economic decline or stagnation in hopes that it will lead to a better country. I would say such a thing would be extremely harmful to Britons, especially the lower classes, and that hopes of a better country are unlikely given the extremism that tends to spring from economic adversity, but I can't say for sure that that will be the case here. If he is willing to pay such a price for a chance at a country more in line with his desires, so be it.
ClosingADoor
Member
TWENTY YEARS. Let that sink in for a bit. We had just gotten 8 years of slow economic growth and are still getting out of it. You are content with adding TWENTY more on top of it. That means that if you are just done with your studies now at 25, you are looking forward to an economic slump until you are 45 in which your possibilities in life are less then they have to be. You are talking about literally 1/4 of your life being objectively worse off. A quarter of your life.
Linkstrikesback
Member
Unless you've got a magic universe hopping machine, and intend to use it when the results come in as a "leave the EU" vote only, leaving the EU isn't what you're imagining.
There won't be any "getting things right" by leaving the EU. No country the size of the UK can survive at the level we currently do in the UK on it's own in 2016, the UK included. Maybe the world was better 50 years ago, I'm not old enough to remember that.
But leaving the EU won't bring those times back, no matter how much pro leavers want to ignore all the people who actually would be able to predict that sort of thing pointing out that it obviously will not happen (fuck the experts amirite).
When we signed up in 1974, very few people voted for what we have now, I think that is fair?
If we were out of europe does any feel we would vote to go in? Now what is right, you make a good point as one person heaven is one persons hell, so I can only go for the majority of leave,,,to be part of Europe but not the EU
what we dont want at all is this
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/six-best-reasons-vote-leave/
The poor are also the most charitable; they pretty much always give more charity proportionate to their income than any other class; so they can and do often support causes that are good for society as a whole; including the middle class, and the rich.
Now you talk about politics and representation of the poor. The only PM who hasn't been from the elite in recent times is John Major; A Tory.
In 1979, 40% of Labour party MPs had done some manual work, in 2010, that was 9%.* Middle class MPs who in the last election were talking to the middle class, with mansion taxes.
Now, with Corbyn at the helm, you see the only leader, who is openly conflicted in this. Is it any wonder he comes from a modest background and left college with 2 Es. He is anti-eu but he is supporting Remain. You make his job harder to support workers right in the EU, by distancing us from the top table in Europe.
There is another leader from modest backgrounds. The Mayor of London, Khan, supports Remain, son of a bus driver, and he just beat, one of the richest MPs, in Goldsmith, son of a billionaire, Eton graduate, in Parliament. So you want to make it about class, let's talk about London.
Because I pick London for another reason. Yes, it is divided, with the inner city voting red, and outer counties voting blue, but I do think London, will come together and vote Remain overall.
And who is supporting Brexit? Boris Johnson, who is richer than the PM, Etonian Tory; you think he represents the poor? Then you have Farage, who has lost every seat he has contested for in the General Election; you think he represents the poor? and Gove, Oxford graduate, who halved Tory support amongst teachers, from 2010, 33% to 16%, and increased Labour support from 32% to 59%, and whom that profession's union, passed a vote of no confidence in. You think he represents the poor or the unionists?
*https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/29/working-class-leaders-politicians
Maybe the below provides a hint! I'm not taking a position on any of these BTW.
You would not want me
Day 1
Death Penalty back
Trains renationalised
Energy renationalised
NHS only free for UK Citizens (others need insurance)
GP's fines introduced for doing training here then fucking off to Australia
Schools, less holidays, more work....no increase in salary for Teachers either
I will do day 2 later
ClosingADoor
Member
So since 1974 you have never voted in elections and the possibility to vote for people who didn't want as much EU integration I take it?
And maybe "we" want it, but "you" don't. If the majority votes in, then yes, Britain does want that.
Some authors have actually predicted or more accurately noticed this phenomenon:
True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society March 17, 2008
Farhad Manjoo
Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives October 29, 2009
Michael Specter
Facts don't count anymore. People who have studied these topics all their lives don't count anymore. They are all bought, shills, or simply "live in their little bubble".
9 out of 10 economists say that Brexit would hurt Britain.
"Whatever, they just want what's best for them, but I (and all the others like me) know better!"
The idea that has started to form is actually that by doing the opposite of what "experts" say, will improve your life and worsen theirs. It's ridiculous.
I blame social media today for a lot of these issues. People start living in their media bubble where they just consume stuff, tailored for their own interests. Everything that is contrary to your own worldview must be a lie, created by the other party.
it's maddening and ridiculous and I honestly have NO idea how to tackle this issue.
True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society March 17, 2008
Farhad Manjoo
Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives October 29, 2009
Michael Specter
Facts don't count anymore. People who have studied these topics all their lives don't count anymore. They are all bought, shills, or simply "live in their little bubble".
9 out of 10 economists say that Brexit would hurt Britain.
"Whatever, they just want what's best for them, but I (and all the others like me) know better!"
The idea that has started to form is actually that by doing the opposite of what "experts" say, will improve your life and worsen theirs. It's ridiculous.
I blame social media today for a lot of these issues. People start living in their media bubble where they just consume stuff, tailored for their own interests. Everything that is contrary to your own worldview must be a lie, created by the other party.
it's maddening and ridiculous and I honestly have NO idea how to tackle this issue.
The EU Referendum, how is NewsThump going to vote?
NEWSTHUMP·MONDAY, 20 JUNE 2016
Before we start, its worth pointing out that this piece isnt going to have a lot of jokes in it (So how is that different to what you normally write? I hear you cry). Secondly, the title is a bit misleading, because NewsThump doesnt get a vote - but the people who write it do, and as the Managing Editor, Im one of those people.
This is being written in my personal capacity. My views dont represent all of the writers and contributors to the site, but as editor I do have influence over what does, and does not get published on the site, so its fair to say my views have influenced the sites tone and content over the last few months.
This is something Ive wanted to write for a while now, because weve written a lot of stories about the referendum, mocking the major players, and the tactics employed by both sides - but weve never actually said what our official position is. And thats because we dont have one. We still dont. Well, NewsThump doesnt, but I - the Managing Editor - do have a view, so Im going to share that with you.
The first thing I would say is that this whole referendum debate is not one of right vs wrong. There is no definitive answer where one side is absolutely correct, and the other is absolutely wrong. The debate is far too nuanced for that. The fact is that if we leave the EU, things wont be as bad as the Remain side would have you believe, whereas staying isnt as bad for us as the Leave side would like you to believe. And thats a shame, because ultimately the feudal nature of this referendum campaign has left very little space for a balanced view.
From a personal perspective, I genuinely believe both sides have made some reasonable arguments - but - theyve also made some extremely spurious and misleading claims. The difficulty has been identifying them in all the rhetoric, and knowing when to call bullshit. The purpose of this article is to try and explain my personal thinking on a number of these major issues and the claims made by both sides, and how Ive come to my own personal decision - whether that influences you, one way or the other, is entirely up to you. Obviously.
Im not trying to win your vote, I am just offering my own thoughts based on the last few months where Ive read, watched and listened to an awful lot of experts claiming to know what will happen next.
There is no particular order to the claims Ive written about, other than the order in which they occurred to me as I write this....
The EU is undemocratic, and reduces the sovereignty of our nation
One of the most common criticisms of the EU is that its undemocratic, and run by people you didnt vote for, and cant remove. But what does that actually mean in reality? Undemocratic immediately conjures images of violent dictatorships, which it clearly isnt, but I also didnt get a chance to vote for European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, so who did, if anyone?
One point to remember here is that democracy does not equal always getting your own way. I have seen many times the claim that the UK can be outvoted and therefore the EU is undemocratic. No, thats not what democracy means. 65% of people who voted in the general election voted for someone other than the Conservatives - they didnt get their own way, but it doesnt make our process undemocratic.
You have to realise that the EU is a very different organisation to our own government, where we vote for our local MP whose party may or may not make a government, and who can be voted out every five years. In Europe, you dont vote in a ruling group for a period of time, you vote for people to take part in the process for their term in office. So what does this process look like, and who is making the decisions?
Within the EU there is the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Courts.
Simply put, the European Council sets the priorities for the EU as whole, the European Commission suggests laws, European Parliament debates and votes on those laws, and the member state governments review and ratify those laws. Sounds simple, but obviously it isnt.
Is this process as democratic as our own system, probably not, no. European Commissioners dont get elected by the people of Europe, and ultimately you and I as UK residents (assuming youre reading in the UK) have no say on who is appointed to the European Commission. But we do elect the people who appoint the Commissioners, which is no different to our elected Prime Minister deciding who should be Chancellor.
Could the EU governing process be simpler? Yes, of course it could - but a process like this means that there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure bad legislation doesnt make it into law. Bear in mind the EU has a remit to look after European interests as a whole - and not all legislation affects all member states equally, so something that is good for Europe might not be great for the UK, and vice versa.
This process of priorities > suggested legislation > reviews/vote can go round and round trying to make a law, but ultimately if the three groups dont agree, no law is passed - and at each stage, we have elected officials reviewing and debating it. See below:
Ultimately, any new law has to be approved by all groups. Is it complicated? Definitely. Is it perfectly efficient? Absolutely not. Is it undemocratic? Definitely not.
Yes, but what about national sovereignty?
There is no doubt whatsoever that the UK is a sovereign state, as defined by international law. The parliament in Westminster is our supreme law making authority - about this there is no debate. If the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law over domestic law in the event that the two are in conflict, it is only done at the express instruction of our parliament to do so. To clarify, if EU law ever takes precedence against UK law, its only because our elected officials have chosen for that to happen in our own legislation. Nothing is forced upon us. See this presentation for a fuller explanation of the law making process from a law professor who specialises in EU law.
Leaving the EU will mean well all be worse off financially
The Remain campaign have been quick to point out that leaving the EU will hit you and I in the pocket ever since the referendum was announced. But will it? Again, there is no way to know for sure, so the only thing you can do is critically assess the evidence and expert opinion that has been presented and make up your own mind.
George Osborne might claim that leaving could cause a recession, but hes yet to get an economic forecast right in six years as chancellor. However, the overwhelming majority of economic and financial experts say that leaving will have an overall negative effect, at least in the short to medium term. If 80% of experts are saying one thing, and 20% are saying something different - then you should probably go with the 80%, unless your decision isnt an economic one.
But lets be clear, nobody knows, with 100% certainty what will happen - and if they tell you they do, theyre either lying, or seriously misguided.
The EU costs us £350m a week, we could spend that elsewhere
To be part of the EU, you have to pay a levy. Britains levy is £18bn a year, or £350m a week - BUT this doesnt count the rebate we get (which brings it down to £13bn immediately, as the other £5bn never leaves our bank account), and the money which is spent by the EU in the UK on things like helping farmers and regeneration projects in deprived areas.
First, the rebate [negotiated by Margaret Thatcher] on Britains contributions means the annual contribution is expected to be £13bn in 2015. Of that money, another £4.5bn comes back to the UK as farming subsidies and regional development funds. Another £1.4bn comes back in grants to the private sector. These adjustments reduce the £350m a week to £136m (Financial Times, 1 April 2016).
So firstly, the £350m figure is misleading at best, and a bit of a fib at worst. But lets be honest, £136m is STILL a lot of money to be sending to the EU every week, lets not lose sight of that. In real terms that you and I can understand, that £136m a week is about 30p each, per day. By no means a small amount, but also not life changing either.
Another important point about this £136m is the perception that we could spend it elsewhere if we leave the EU, completely ignoring the fact that leaving might mean the government has less money to spend overall. The total amount of money the government gets in taxable revenue is about 35% of GDP, since about 2000. As the economy grows, the government has more money, when it shrinks, it has less. Thats pretty obvious, right? Sometimes its a little more than 35%, sometimes a little less, depending on who is in power, but that figure will do for the maths here.
The main point to consider is that if leaving the EU meant the UK economy is just ONE PERCENT smaller (not necessarily put into recession, just one percent smaller than it would otherwise have been), that would cost the government £9.8bn in tax revenue*. Almost TEN BILLION. To be clear, it costs us £7bn to be in the EU, so we could lose more than that from just a one percent effect on the size of the economy. Some pessimistic forecasts have this effect at over 3%.
* Current GDP approximately £2.8 trillion, one percent of this is £28 billion, and 35% of that figure is just under £10 billion - the revenue the government would lose from a 1% impact on the economy.
The point being, £350m a week (or the £136m a week figure they should have been quoting) is a LOT of money, but it is an absolute pittance compared to the amounts we could lose if leaving the EU has an economic impact of even one percent.
So what will the impact be? Well, predictions are mixed, as youd imagine. In an IPSO MORI poll of 632 leading economists, (those who responded when asked), 88% said leaving the EU would have a negative impact on the economy, at least in the short-term over the next five years. 72% said it would have a negative effect over 10-20 years. How much effect, well, they just dont agree - anything from half a percent to three percent. Optimistically, some said that by 2030 leaving the EU could actually mean the economy is BIGGER (assuming we negotiate a really good trade deal with the EU and the rest of the world).
So we dont know what the economic effect will be, not with any certainty, anyway. What we do know is that there is a general consensus amongst economists that there will be a negative impact in the short term, but not by how much. And if theyre right, any saving we make from not contributing to the EU is eaten up immediately.
One other thing, the Leave campaign bus has a slogan which says £350m - lets spend the money on the NHS instead. Now, I dont know about you, but I can only look at the people involved in that Leave campaign and wonder what makes people think any extra pound they saved would go to the NHS instead of a tax cut for their friends?
If we Leave well be able to trade with whoever we like, however we like
Taking back control of our trade agreements is a big part of the Leave campaign, but what does that actually mean, and can we do what they say we can?
As part of the EU we have negotiated trade deals with large parts of the world, with many other negotiations well underway.
If we leave, we walk away from ALL of those agreements. Those countries and trade groups negotiated a trade deal with the EU, not with the UK. Sure, we could try and negotiate our own deals with them directly, but were starting from scratch. This takes time, and that time that is measured in years - many, many years.
On the plus side, would it be easier, for example, to negotiate a trade deal with China negotiating as the UK alone, without having to take into account the concerns of all 28 EU member states? Yes, it definitely would. Im sure the list of things we want from such a deal is smaller than the list of things the EU as a whole wants, so in theory it would be easier.
But, the list of things we can offer them is equally smaller - were a smaller market thats already quite open, so we dont have a lot of bargaining chips. Negotiating a deal more quickly does not mean negotiating a better deal. The negotiating power of the EU is greater than that of the UK alone, there is no disputing that. Sure, deals take a while, but when theyre done they tend to be on better terms than the deals we could probably do on our own.
What about trade with the EU?
Leaving the EU means leaving the free trade area. This does NOT mean we stop trading with the EU, it just means its a bit more difficult, and likely to be subject to tariffs. This makes imports more expensive, and our exports more expensive, too. This is a bad thing, obviously. Free trade is best for everyone, and we would prefer to keep a free trade agreement in place with the EU, but not pay into the EU budget, not abide by any laws, and not give freedom of movement - and thats simply not going to happen.
So if we leave, were either going to continue trading with some tariffs, or well trade freely, but have to accept paying into the EU budget, abiding by their rules, and potentially have to allow freedom of movement.
Also, I hear a lot about we have two years to negotiate the new deal with the EU, so the uncertainty isnt as bad as people say. This is incorrect, that two year period is to negotiate the divorce, i.e. how do we de-couple ourselves, how do we deal with the EU citizens living in the UK, the UK citizens living in the EU, and so on. Once thats done, we negotiate a trade deal separately - and that will take far longer than two years.
** Update 21st June 8:30am - quite a few people in the comments have pointed out that we could go for a Norway or Swiss style free-trade agreement with the EU and avoid all this uncertainty (and the associated economic problems that uncertainty brings), so I wanted to address this directly. The short answer is yes, we could do a deal with the EU to access to the free market like either Norway or Switzerland, and avoid a lot of the uncertainty above. BUT (and its a big but), the cost to Norway and Switzerland for this access is a combination of paying into the EU budget, adopting EU laws, and allowing freedom of movement - the three things Vote Leave has said it wants to get rid of. Norway, for example, pays a levy to the EU that is about 70% of the UK levy, per person - and its border with Europe is more open than our own inside the EU. It would be a strange situation indeed if we leave the EU, only to opt for a free-trade agreement that means the UK still has to adopt all the things we were told were bad about the EU. Worse still, wed no longer have a seat at the EU table or any influence over the future direction of the organisation or the rules that get made.
70% of our laws are made in Europe and we have no say in how theyre made
Barely a Question Time goes by where this claim isnt made, either by a panellist or an audience member, but what does it mean? What counts as a law?
Mostly, theyre talking about European Standards. Without these EU-wide standards, selling into each country would be a nightmare as they could have their own different product standards, and the concept of a free-trading areas wouldnt work. You would have to potentially change your product to sell it in Spain, or France, or Germany - common standards make free trade easier. So yes, were subject to those laws, but without them wed find it harder to trade in Europe.
When people hear the EU is making our laws, they hear the EU is telling us how to deal with rapists, not The EU is telling us what chemicals you can use when making pillows.
Have these numerous EU standards made our lives worse? Well, if you dont trade with European partners, or sell to European customers, then it might be that those standards have cost you money in adopting them, and you get no benefit. So yes, it would potentially negatively affect you. If you trade with Europe, youre going to have to abide by these standards if you want to continue selling there, so leaving isnt going to magically remove all this legislation, unless youve decided Europe isnt an important market for you.
On aggregate, and looking at the amount of trade we have with Europe, on balance I would say it hasnt had a negative effect.
When asked how an EU law has made our lives worse I tend to hear about straight bananas or something silly about kettles. Ive yet to hear of one EU law we are subject to that has made our lives demonstrably worse, or sufficient to justify us leaving.
The question of immigration - the good, the bad, and the ugly
Immigration has been the hot topic since before the last general election, thanks to UKIP. Theyve been pretty much a one-issue party since inception, and the constant barrage of problems they claim are caused by immigrants has obviously put the issue front and centre for a lot of voters.
Independent economic assessment shows that immigrants contribute to our society, and help us grow. As a whole, the immigrant community put more into our society than they take out. They pay more in taxes, than they cost us in benefits. That said, are there immigrants who have come over here to exploit our benefits system, almost certainly - thats why you cant assess immigration on individual cases, you have to look at it as an aggregate.
Then we have the issue of services being stretched. This is a good point, but has been argued badly. If youre waiting five hours at A&E to see a doctor about your sprained ankle, its not because of immigration - its because not enough is being spent on A&E services.
Let me give you a hypothetical. If the UK birth rate doubled overnight, and this time next year the papers are full of stories about people struggling to get midwife support, or nursery spaces, or cant see a paediatrician without waiting days, or cant get on the waitlist for their preferred primary schools - would you be sat there blaming people for having too much sex? Or would you be saying the government should be spending more on these services?
Remember, immigrants more than pay their way in the economy as a whole, so if the services they use are stretched its because the people collecting their taxes arent spending it on the right things.
The future of the EU - what will it mean for us?
So, all that said, what do we think? First of all, I want to return to what I wrote early in the piece - this is not a black and white situation. There is no definitive right or wrong answer. Personally, I think the chances of us being better off inside the EU are about 65/35 in favour. This doesnt make me a Europhile, this doesnt mean I think the EU is perfect, this doesnt mean I want unlimited immigration and Turkey to join the EU. It just means that, on balance, and after listening to a range of expert opinion and reading the evidence presented, I think wed better off in, than out.
The worst part of this entire process is that well never actually know - for certain - who was right. If we leave, well never know how the economy would have done if wed stayed in, and if we remain well never know what it would have done if wed left. What this means is that we have to prepare for years - and years - of political I told you sos when anything bad happens. If you think its tedious listening to the government blame the decisions of the last Labour government six years after they left power - you havent seen anything yet.
The Government misses economic target? That wouldnt have happened if wed left/remained (delete as appropriate).
Interest rates are going up? That wouldnt have happened if wed left/remained (delete as appropriate).
Theres been a terrorist attack in the UK? That wouldnt have happened if wed left/remained (delete as appropriate).
This entire referendum debate has fucked political discourse until at least the next general election.
Conclusion
How to vote on Thursday is entirely your decision, and you should do what you think is best for you and yours. Personally, I think leaving the EU would be like getting a divorce because your partner has a haircut you dont like and insists you have dinner with the in-laws once a week. Sure, its a pain sometimes and there are a few things you really dont like about it - but on balance its a relationship that you benefit from.
Whatever happens on Thursday, well be here on Friday morning taking the piss out of whoever has won...
NEWSTHUMP·MONDAY, 20 JUNE 2016
Before we start, its worth pointing out that this piece isnt going to have a lot of jokes in it (So how is that different to what you normally write? I hear you cry). Secondly, the title is a bit misleading, because NewsThump doesnt get a vote - but the people who write it do, and as the Managing Editor, Im one of those people.
This is being written in my personal capacity. My views dont represent all of the writers and contributors to the site, but as editor I do have influence over what does, and does not get published on the site, so its fair to say my views have influenced the sites tone and content over the last few months.
This is something Ive wanted to write for a while now, because weve written a lot of stories about the referendum, mocking the major players, and the tactics employed by both sides - but weve never actually said what our official position is. And thats because we dont have one. We still dont. Well, NewsThump doesnt, but I - the Managing Editor - do have a view, so Im going to share that with you.
The first thing I would say is that this whole referendum debate is not one of right vs wrong. There is no definitive answer where one side is absolutely correct, and the other is absolutely wrong. The debate is far too nuanced for that. The fact is that if we leave the EU, things wont be as bad as the Remain side would have you believe, whereas staying isnt as bad for us as the Leave side would like you to believe. And thats a shame, because ultimately the feudal nature of this referendum campaign has left very little space for a balanced view.
From a personal perspective, I genuinely believe both sides have made some reasonable arguments - but - theyve also made some extremely spurious and misleading claims. The difficulty has been identifying them in all the rhetoric, and knowing when to call bullshit. The purpose of this article is to try and explain my personal thinking on a number of these major issues and the claims made by both sides, and how Ive come to my own personal decision - whether that influences you, one way or the other, is entirely up to you. Obviously.
Im not trying to win your vote, I am just offering my own thoughts based on the last few months where Ive read, watched and listened to an awful lot of experts claiming to know what will happen next.
There is no particular order to the claims Ive written about, other than the order in which they occurred to me as I write this....
The EU is undemocratic, and reduces the sovereignty of our nation
One of the most common criticisms of the EU is that its undemocratic, and run by people you didnt vote for, and cant remove. But what does that actually mean in reality? Undemocratic immediately conjures images of violent dictatorships, which it clearly isnt, but I also didnt get a chance to vote for European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, so who did, if anyone?
One point to remember here is that democracy does not equal always getting your own way. I have seen many times the claim that the UK can be outvoted and therefore the EU is undemocratic. No, thats not what democracy means. 65% of people who voted in the general election voted for someone other than the Conservatives - they didnt get their own way, but it doesnt make our process undemocratic.
You have to realise that the EU is a very different organisation to our own government, where we vote for our local MP whose party may or may not make a government, and who can be voted out every five years. In Europe, you dont vote in a ruling group for a period of time, you vote for people to take part in the process for their term in office. So what does this process look like, and who is making the decisions?
Within the EU there is the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Courts.
Simply put, the European Council sets the priorities for the EU as whole, the European Commission suggests laws, European Parliament debates and votes on those laws, and the member state governments review and ratify those laws. Sounds simple, but obviously it isnt.
Is this process as democratic as our own system, probably not, no. European Commissioners dont get elected by the people of Europe, and ultimately you and I as UK residents (assuming youre reading in the UK) have no say on who is appointed to the European Commission. But we do elect the people who appoint the Commissioners, which is no different to our elected Prime Minister deciding who should be Chancellor.
Could the EU governing process be simpler? Yes, of course it could - but a process like this means that there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure bad legislation doesnt make it into law. Bear in mind the EU has a remit to look after European interests as a whole - and not all legislation affects all member states equally, so something that is good for Europe might not be great for the UK, and vice versa.
This process of priorities > suggested legislation > reviews/vote can go round and round trying to make a law, but ultimately if the three groups dont agree, no law is passed - and at each stage, we have elected officials reviewing and debating it. See below:
Ultimately, any new law has to be approved by all groups. Is it complicated? Definitely. Is it perfectly efficient? Absolutely not. Is it undemocratic? Definitely not.
Yes, but what about national sovereignty?
There is no doubt whatsoever that the UK is a sovereign state, as defined by international law. The parliament in Westminster is our supreme law making authority - about this there is no debate. If the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law over domestic law in the event that the two are in conflict, it is only done at the express instruction of our parliament to do so. To clarify, if EU law ever takes precedence against UK law, its only because our elected officials have chosen for that to happen in our own legislation. Nothing is forced upon us. See this presentation for a fuller explanation of the law making process from a law professor who specialises in EU law.
Leaving the EU will mean well all be worse off financially
The Remain campaign have been quick to point out that leaving the EU will hit you and I in the pocket ever since the referendum was announced. But will it? Again, there is no way to know for sure, so the only thing you can do is critically assess the evidence and expert opinion that has been presented and make up your own mind.
George Osborne might claim that leaving could cause a recession, but hes yet to get an economic forecast right in six years as chancellor. However, the overwhelming majority of economic and financial experts say that leaving will have an overall negative effect, at least in the short to medium term. If 80% of experts are saying one thing, and 20% are saying something different - then you should probably go with the 80%, unless your decision isnt an economic one.
But lets be clear, nobody knows, with 100% certainty what will happen - and if they tell you they do, theyre either lying, or seriously misguided.
The EU costs us £350m a week, we could spend that elsewhere
To be part of the EU, you have to pay a levy. Britains levy is £18bn a year, or £350m a week - BUT this doesnt count the rebate we get (which brings it down to £13bn immediately, as the other £5bn never leaves our bank account), and the money which is spent by the EU in the UK on things like helping farmers and regeneration projects in deprived areas.
First, the rebate [negotiated by Margaret Thatcher] on Britains contributions means the annual contribution is expected to be £13bn in 2015. Of that money, another £4.5bn comes back to the UK as farming subsidies and regional development funds. Another £1.4bn comes back in grants to the private sector. These adjustments reduce the £350m a week to £136m (Financial Times, 1 April 2016).
So firstly, the £350m figure is misleading at best, and a bit of a fib at worst. But lets be honest, £136m is STILL a lot of money to be sending to the EU every week, lets not lose sight of that. In real terms that you and I can understand, that £136m a week is about 30p each, per day. By no means a small amount, but also not life changing either.
Another important point about this £136m is the perception that we could spend it elsewhere if we leave the EU, completely ignoring the fact that leaving might mean the government has less money to spend overall. The total amount of money the government gets in taxable revenue is about 35% of GDP, since about 2000. As the economy grows, the government has more money, when it shrinks, it has less. Thats pretty obvious, right? Sometimes its a little more than 35%, sometimes a little less, depending on who is in power, but that figure will do for the maths here.
The main point to consider is that if leaving the EU meant the UK economy is just ONE PERCENT smaller (not necessarily put into recession, just one percent smaller than it would otherwise have been), that would cost the government £9.8bn in tax revenue*. Almost TEN BILLION. To be clear, it costs us £7bn to be in the EU, so we could lose more than that from just a one percent effect on the size of the economy. Some pessimistic forecasts have this effect at over 3%.
* Current GDP approximately £2.8 trillion, one percent of this is £28 billion, and 35% of that figure is just under £10 billion - the revenue the government would lose from a 1% impact on the economy.
The point being, £350m a week (or the £136m a week figure they should have been quoting) is a LOT of money, but it is an absolute pittance compared to the amounts we could lose if leaving the EU has an economic impact of even one percent.
So what will the impact be? Well, predictions are mixed, as youd imagine. In an IPSO MORI poll of 632 leading economists, (those who responded when asked), 88% said leaving the EU would have a negative impact on the economy, at least in the short-term over the next five years. 72% said it would have a negative effect over 10-20 years. How much effect, well, they just dont agree - anything from half a percent to three percent. Optimistically, some said that by 2030 leaving the EU could actually mean the economy is BIGGER (assuming we negotiate a really good trade deal with the EU and the rest of the world).
So we dont know what the economic effect will be, not with any certainty, anyway. What we do know is that there is a general consensus amongst economists that there will be a negative impact in the short term, but not by how much. And if theyre right, any saving we make from not contributing to the EU is eaten up immediately.
One other thing, the Leave campaign bus has a slogan which says £350m - lets spend the money on the NHS instead. Now, I dont know about you, but I can only look at the people involved in that Leave campaign and wonder what makes people think any extra pound they saved would go to the NHS instead of a tax cut for their friends?
If we Leave well be able to trade with whoever we like, however we like
Taking back control of our trade agreements is a big part of the Leave campaign, but what does that actually mean, and can we do what they say we can?
As part of the EU we have negotiated trade deals with large parts of the world, with many other negotiations well underway.
If we leave, we walk away from ALL of those agreements. Those countries and trade groups negotiated a trade deal with the EU, not with the UK. Sure, we could try and negotiate our own deals with them directly, but were starting from scratch. This takes time, and that time that is measured in years - many, many years.
On the plus side, would it be easier, for example, to negotiate a trade deal with China negotiating as the UK alone, without having to take into account the concerns of all 28 EU member states? Yes, it definitely would. Im sure the list of things we want from such a deal is smaller than the list of things the EU as a whole wants, so in theory it would be easier.
But, the list of things we can offer them is equally smaller - were a smaller market thats already quite open, so we dont have a lot of bargaining chips. Negotiating a deal more quickly does not mean negotiating a better deal. The negotiating power of the EU is greater than that of the UK alone, there is no disputing that. Sure, deals take a while, but when theyre done they tend to be on better terms than the deals we could probably do on our own.
What about trade with the EU?
Leaving the EU means leaving the free trade area. This does NOT mean we stop trading with the EU, it just means its a bit more difficult, and likely to be subject to tariffs. This makes imports more expensive, and our exports more expensive, too. This is a bad thing, obviously. Free trade is best for everyone, and we would prefer to keep a free trade agreement in place with the EU, but not pay into the EU budget, not abide by any laws, and not give freedom of movement - and thats simply not going to happen.
So if we leave, were either going to continue trading with some tariffs, or well trade freely, but have to accept paying into the EU budget, abiding by their rules, and potentially have to allow freedom of movement.
Also, I hear a lot about we have two years to negotiate the new deal with the EU, so the uncertainty isnt as bad as people say. This is incorrect, that two year period is to negotiate the divorce, i.e. how do we de-couple ourselves, how do we deal with the EU citizens living in the UK, the UK citizens living in the EU, and so on. Once thats done, we negotiate a trade deal separately - and that will take far longer than two years.
** Update 21st June 8:30am - quite a few people in the comments have pointed out that we could go for a Norway or Swiss style free-trade agreement with the EU and avoid all this uncertainty (and the associated economic problems that uncertainty brings), so I wanted to address this directly. The short answer is yes, we could do a deal with the EU to access to the free market like either Norway or Switzerland, and avoid a lot of the uncertainty above. BUT (and its a big but), the cost to Norway and Switzerland for this access is a combination of paying into the EU budget, adopting EU laws, and allowing freedom of movement - the three things Vote Leave has said it wants to get rid of. Norway, for example, pays a levy to the EU that is about 70% of the UK levy, per person - and its border with Europe is more open than our own inside the EU. It would be a strange situation indeed if we leave the EU, only to opt for a free-trade agreement that means the UK still has to adopt all the things we were told were bad about the EU. Worse still, wed no longer have a seat at the EU table or any influence over the future direction of the organisation or the rules that get made.
70% of our laws are made in Europe and we have no say in how theyre made
Barely a Question Time goes by where this claim isnt made, either by a panellist or an audience member, but what does it mean? What counts as a law?
Mostly, theyre talking about European Standards. Without these EU-wide standards, selling into each country would be a nightmare as they could have their own different product standards, and the concept of a free-trading areas wouldnt work. You would have to potentially change your product to sell it in Spain, or France, or Germany - common standards make free trade easier. So yes, were subject to those laws, but without them wed find it harder to trade in Europe.
When people hear the EU is making our laws, they hear the EU is telling us how to deal with rapists, not The EU is telling us what chemicals you can use when making pillows.
Have these numerous EU standards made our lives worse? Well, if you dont trade with European partners, or sell to European customers, then it might be that those standards have cost you money in adopting them, and you get no benefit. So yes, it would potentially negatively affect you. If you trade with Europe, youre going to have to abide by these standards if you want to continue selling there, so leaving isnt going to magically remove all this legislation, unless youve decided Europe isnt an important market for you.
On aggregate, and looking at the amount of trade we have with Europe, on balance I would say it hasnt had a negative effect.
When asked how an EU law has made our lives worse I tend to hear about straight bananas or something silly about kettles. Ive yet to hear of one EU law we are subject to that has made our lives demonstrably worse, or sufficient to justify us leaving.
The question of immigration - the good, the bad, and the ugly
Immigration has been the hot topic since before the last general election, thanks to UKIP. Theyve been pretty much a one-issue party since inception, and the constant barrage of problems they claim are caused by immigrants has obviously put the issue front and centre for a lot of voters.
Independent economic assessment shows that immigrants contribute to our society, and help us grow. As a whole, the immigrant community put more into our society than they take out. They pay more in taxes, than they cost us in benefits. That said, are there immigrants who have come over here to exploit our benefits system, almost certainly - thats why you cant assess immigration on individual cases, you have to look at it as an aggregate.
Then we have the issue of services being stretched. This is a good point, but has been argued badly. If youre waiting five hours at A&E to see a doctor about your sprained ankle, its not because of immigration - its because not enough is being spent on A&E services.
Let me give you a hypothetical. If the UK birth rate doubled overnight, and this time next year the papers are full of stories about people struggling to get midwife support, or nursery spaces, or cant see a paediatrician without waiting days, or cant get on the waitlist for their preferred primary schools - would you be sat there blaming people for having too much sex? Or would you be saying the government should be spending more on these services?
Remember, immigrants more than pay their way in the economy as a whole, so if the services they use are stretched its because the people collecting their taxes arent spending it on the right things.
The future of the EU - what will it mean for us?
So, all that said, what do we think? First of all, I want to return to what I wrote early in the piece - this is not a black and white situation. There is no definitive right or wrong answer. Personally, I think the chances of us being better off inside the EU are about 65/35 in favour. This doesnt make me a Europhile, this doesnt mean I think the EU is perfect, this doesnt mean I want unlimited immigration and Turkey to join the EU. It just means that, on balance, and after listening to a range of expert opinion and reading the evidence presented, I think wed better off in, than out.
The worst part of this entire process is that well never actually know - for certain - who was right. If we leave, well never know how the economy would have done if wed stayed in, and if we remain well never know what it would have done if wed left. What this means is that we have to prepare for years - and years - of political I told you sos when anything bad happens. If you think its tedious listening to the government blame the decisions of the last Labour government six years after they left power - you havent seen anything yet.
The Government misses economic target? That wouldnt have happened if wed left/remained (delete as appropriate).
Interest rates are going up? That wouldnt have happened if wed left/remained (delete as appropriate).
Theres been a terrorist attack in the UK? That wouldnt have happened if wed left/remained (delete as appropriate).
This entire referendum debate has fucked political discourse until at least the next general election.
Conclusion
How to vote on Thursday is entirely your decision, and you should do what you think is best for you and yours. Personally, I think leaving the EU would be like getting a divorce because your partner has a haircut you dont like and insists you have dinner with the in-laws once a week. Sure, its a pain sometimes and there are a few things you really dont like about it - but on balance its a relationship that you benefit from.
Whatever happens on Thursday, well be here on Friday morning taking the piss out of whoever has won...
Unfortunately research has shown that it doesn't really matter how you present facts and figures to someone who already believes something. Being presented with opposite evidence, no matter the manner, just makes people double down on what they think they already know.
It's a flaw built into us it seems - on all political sides. As a species we are very reluctant to change opinions.
You're intentionally quoting from Daniel Hannan? /shrug
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/six-best-reasons-vote-leave/
I hear that, but it wont be 20 years really, look (giving away my age) when I bought my first home interest rates were 15%
yes 15% and you no what, people were fine, the country did not implode, we all got on with it.... people just fear change, sometimes change is good, and I firmly believe after we levelled off people will realise we made the right decision to leave...
Vote remain and you award big businesses and power hungry people the status quo and another 40 years of lower class people being dumped on
I did add the quote mate, you just beat me to the punch
ClosingADoor
Member
So first you say 20 years, but then "not really". What is it? And are you surprised I rather take the things experts say about this, then believe you?
When did you buy that house? What was the proportion of income you put towards your home? How expensive was the house? These are not things that say much on their own. I can easily afford 15% on a 50.000 mortgage. Becomes a bit troublesome if it is a 300.000 mortgage.
I do business in other countries because of the EU. With England, with Spain. I have 3 employees. I am profiting from this. Am I a big bad business taking your money? Are the people from England who work for multinationals headquartered now in the UK because of its access to the EU? Are the Eastern Europeans working in other countries to make a better living? Yes, big business is profiting from the EU. But so are millions of regular folk around the country and continent.
I totally understand what you're getting at. But when people who make money are all recommending to vote remain BECAUSE it will make them more money, that's something you can pretty much set your watch by.
Do I think a lot of people who've come out in favour of Remain have done so for altruistic reasons to serve the greater good? Fuck no. They've done it because they think/know the economy will be better off if we stay in the EU and that will make them more money. You can trust in the predictability of the behaviour of people who operate in those circles. In simple terms, I don't have to like the 'why' of it all, but I can certainly rely on the 'what'.
Fifteen per cent interest now would be catastrophic.
Homes are so much more expensive to buy now, in relation to income.
Edit: just doing basic math, every house in my family and extended family, would be repossessed. That's every single house. Based on mortgage increase to 15%
HandsomeCharles
Member
That's what I'm trying to say. Don't present it as evidence contrary to their conclusions, but more like it's something that (they will think) supports their argument.
I do a similar thing quite a lot at work. If I spot a problem with something I don't point out the flaws, I pose it in the form of asking a question as though I legitimately don't know the answer. People are more more receptive to change if they think it's their own idea.
Vyse The Legend
Member
What are the latest polls saying? It seems unfathomable that Britain would leave, but maybe the polls are showing otherwise...
20 years was my worst case prediction, so that was why I said I expect it to be shorter, but 20 years worse case
The house was £18,000 for a 4 bedroom semi...go figure hey! so obviously mortgage was tiny, I will grant you that
PJV3
Member
Today.
Survation has a 1 point lead for remain, neck and neck if undecided voters have to choose.
please, never trust people who make money to tell you what is best, just think about it for a second
...
The problem with that sort of thinking is that economic growth compounds. A difference of 1 or 2% annual growth over 20 years is a HUGE difference the size of an economy and the standard of living for ordinary people.
To catch up to what you have lost with that 20 years of spitting yourself in the face, the UK will need to experience much higher annual growth in order to simply catch up for an extended period of time, and that is not very likely because the UK is already a mature economy and high wages.
I ask out of genuine curiosity - what exactly is your vision for the country once it's been 'reset' as you put it?
Personally I work for a company that sells products to the EU. Leaving the EU will likely result in the company no longer being profitable - and I will likely lose my job. This would be a shame as I have only just managed to find myself in a situation where I can just begin to start saving to maybe one day buy a house. The idea of jeopardising this for whatever the supposed benefits are is not a risk I am at all willing to take.
31GhostsIV
Banned
You beat me to the punch Has...
Tak3n yoy have to be trolling 15% interest rates fine every quarter of a per cent adds 12 pounds to my monthly payments and I have a reasonable mortgage with nearly 13 years to go and that would squeeze me never mind the rest of the country. Why are so many leave supporters prepared to take the chance that the economy will be ok some on the radio 2 today voting for leave on the slim chance of a property crash and they could then get on the property ladder. Jesus wept
Can anyone spot the pattern? If all the expert analysis isn't conforming to your world view then attack having expertise.
And with this you have lost any credibility you had with me. You are ok with reducing the financial potential of multiple generations to move towards your preferred world view. You must lead a comfortable life for the prospect of 20 years of economic downturn to not be that much of a concern for you.
It's only 20 years of misery to make Britain great again under Boris Johnson, be a patriot and pay the price!
This is why there shouldn't be referendums about these matters.
I dont want you to lose your job, but what makes you think your company will suddenly say they can not sell to the EU anymore?
do you honestly think your company will go stuff it, we can no longer trade?
ClosingADoor
Member
Now that would easily be ten times as much, so you can see who morgage interest matters a bit more for most. Those days of cheap housing isn't coming back, not even when leaving the EU.
Why wait and see what happens? Move your headquaters and business to the EU while it's viable and maybe come back eventually if/when the UK gets its shit together.Staying in this country adn seeing what happens is just bad business.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked