Support NeoGAF

[Maledict]

I'd say there's a fair amount on each side.

All it needs is the right spark.

We've already had protests from pro-European people. They were absolutely not violent in any way.

Let's stop with the false equivalences here. One team has the BNP, Britain First and *actual* Nazis and the other side has a group of people who put on EU flag makeup and kissed in a park.

 

[Lego Boss]

Selfish politicians, they care more about themselves than the people and country. Causing riots would be political suicide, so they wont dismiss the referendum outright. People calm down and forget to be angry after a while though so maybe they'll try the wait and see approach.
Actually going through with leaving the EU would probably be the easiest way for them, lot's of people get what they have voted for, the other side is reasonable enough to not light up the city streets over this and the negative effects this will have wont be felt immediably. So when the public realises that this was a bad idea overall, they (the politicians) are out of the deep water and (maybe) still in power.

All of the politicians who caused this clusterfuck have resigned/distanced themselves anyway.

It doesn't seem to matter what they do, they appear to be completely insualted and abstracted from the effects.

It's no wonder people think they don't care and go for the 'protest vote': the worse it gets, the more politicans act like imbeciles.

 

[StayDead]

We've already had protests from pro-European people. They were absolutely not violent in any way.

Let's stop with the false equivalences here. One team has the BNP, Britain First and *actual* Nazis and the other side has a group of people who put on EU flag makeup and kissed in a park.

Is possible riots REALLY a reason for leading the country down a garden path? Isn't that what the police exist for. If anything, it would be better as it means the police would finally have a reason to arrest those hateful people.

 

[Undead]

The Government pledged to honour the result. It'd do lasting damage to democracy in this country if that pledge was broken.

I'll take the lasting damage to democracy over the damage from leaving the EU.
Most of the idiots who will bang on about democracy being damaged will be the same ones who actually believed the newspapers that we would be kicking out immigrants, sealing off our borders and be completely free of any EU rules(so no big loss for the voting pool).

 

[accel]

Is possible riots REALLY a reason for leading the country down a garden path?

I know it might seem that everyone (or everyone clever or whoever) agrees it's doom and exiting is "leading the country down a garden path", etc, from this thread, but there is an alternative opinion that exiting is, while difficult and bad in the short-term, good for the long-term.

 

[Bananajama]

We've already had protests from pro-European people. They were absolutely not violent in any way.

Let's stop with the false equivalences here. One team has the BNP, Britain First and *actual* Nazis and the other side has a group of people who put on EU flag makeup and kissed in a park.

Again - right spark you'll see those calm protesters turn violent.

Amount of times I've seen social lefties act out aggressively against the right.

While maybe not comparable in incidents to the right v left.

It's still there.

 

[Maledict]

Again - right spark you'll see those calm protesters turn violent.

Amount of times I've seen social lefties act out aggressively against the right.

While maybe not comparable in incidents to the right v left.

It's still there.

No, they aren't comparable and you need to stop saying it. An MP was murdered in broad daylight by a far right terrorist. We've already seen a massive rise in hate crime following this. We've had vIolent protests from the far right for decades.

Just stop. You aren't winning any points by trying to say there's any sort of equivalence. We've already seen the protests from the pro-EU crowd and they aren't violent.

Oh, and as someone whose work deals with hate crime, I can sum up the number of times in the past 5 years we've had an issue with a left wing hate crime. 0.

There is no equivalence here.

 

[Crumpo]

I know it might seem that everyone (or everyone clever or whoever) agrees it's doom and exiting is "leading the country down a garden path", etc, from this thread, but there is an alternative opinion that exiting is, while difficult and bad in the short-term, good for the long-term.

Is that opinion backed up by anything? Would appreciate a link to an opinion reasoned with economic forecasts.

Might be biased media but every economic forecast and model I've seen is negative.

 

[*Splinter]

I know it might seem that everyone (or everyone clever or whoever) agrees it's doom and exiting is "leading the country down a garden path", etc, from this thread, but there is an alternative opinion that exiting is, while difficult and bad in the short-term, good for the long-term.

But there's nothing to back up that alternative opinion?

If there's an "alternative opinion" that the US secretly wants us to invade and that we'd be rich if we successfully did so, should we invade to appease the 3 nutters who believe that? Or should point to the mountains of evidence to the contrary and dismiss it as an obviously bad idea?

 

[kadotsu]

We should not think of riots as political currency. They are a emotional response and often correlate to failings on social issues. It will take time for the economic issues to turn into social issues.
The biggest populist consequence of the referendum will be a sharp decline in consumer spending, that coupled with austerity and a cut in investments could lead to one hell of a shitstorm but it will take time.

 

[Bananajama]

No, they aren't comparable and you need to stop saying it. An MP was murdered in broad daylight by a far right terrorist. We've already seen a massive rise in hate crime following this. We've had vIolent protests from the far right for decades.

Just stop. You aren't winning any points by trying to say there's any sort of equivalence. We've already seen the protests from the pro-EU crowd and they aren't violent.

Oh, and as someone whose work deals with hate crime, I can sum up the number of times in the past 5 years we've had an issue with a left wing hate crime. 0.

There is no equivalence here.

Are you saying everyone that's pro-europe would never riot?

Quite frankly that's utter bull crap

There's 16 million people in there.

I'm not saying they're as bad as those who voted leave for god sake.
Just saying that the right spark could turn any protest into a riot.

Just because it didn't happen on that one march. Doesn't mean they wouldn't ever.

I grew up in the mining towns of the north as a lad.
We were as social and labour as they come.

And christ. We've had some of the biggest protests turn to $hit due to the few dumb actions of those in the police. Or police reacting against a few of our idiots and it becoming mob rule.

 

[jakonovski]

Quite the precedent for a common law country you guys are proposing: economy trumps democracy.

 

[*Splinter]

Quite the precedent for a common law country you guys are proposing: economy trumps democracy.

Oh piss off

 

[firehawk12]

Did a shoe get eaten yet?

 

[operon]

Quite the precedent for a common law country you guys are proposing: economy trumps democracy.

In a few months when the shit really hits the fan a lot of leavers will be begging the government not to hit the switch

 

[Bananajama]

In a few months when the shit really hits the fan a lot of leavers will be begging the government not to hit the switch

To be honest the way it's heading I'm fully expecting much of what we currently have in place (including freedom of movement) to be maintained.

But no actual voice in the EU.

So carry on as normal.
Free movement
Less £££ monthly contributions (Net not gross)
And a slight dint to the economy.
(Looks more than slight now admittedly!)

 

[jakonovski]

In a few months when the shit really hits the fan a lot of leavers will be begging the government not to hit the switch

Misleading of voters is a much better reason for take backsies.

 

[Theonik]

Did a shoe get eaten yet?

PLS BE EXCITED.

 

[Crumpo]

In a Norway-style model I read we'd pay roughly the same for access but receive less back. Also, EEA doesn't cover the banking passport, which will cost us more to keep.

So same rules from EU, same business access, but no say in rules and we pay more.

Pretty much exactly what the Remain camp had said the entire time.

 

[accel]

Is that opinion backed up by anything? Would appreciate a link to an opinion reasoned with economic forecasts.

Might be biased media but every economic forecast and model I've seen is negative.

But there's nothing to back up that alternative opinion?

If there's an "alternative opinion" that the US secretly wants us to invade and that we'd be rich if we successfully did so, should we invade to appease the 3 nutters who believe that? Or should point to the mountains of evidence to the contrary and dismiss it as an obviously bad idea?

I am not aware of long-term economic forecasts for the question of this size that could be taken seriously for either leaving or staying. The rationale for leaving and grounds for expecting to do better outside of the EU is that EU is overbearing, frequently damaging and inefficient. For that there are plenty of examples given earlier, I refer you to prior pages.

Frankly, the thread is talking about all this every morning. "It's so terrible, is it OK if we ignore the referendum" - <discussion around "no, it would be bad" which eventually turns into...> - "But exiting is so damaging, at this point it's criminal to let the country exit!", then I or someone else point out that no, exiting is not clearly terrible all around and the 52% who voted Leave aren't all idiots and not all their arguments are lies, then there is a question of what are these arguments, then the arguments are given (the above is a very short form, I wrote at much greater length earlier), and then it all dies down in order to repeat the next day. Sorry for the huge run-on sentence.

 

[Tyaren]

In a Norway-style model I read we'd pay roughly the same for access but receive less back. Also, EEA doesn't cover the banking passport, which will cost us more to keep.

So same rules from EU, same business access, but no say in rules and we pay more.

Pretty much exactly what the Remain camp had said the entire time.

You forgot free movement of people. Without this no acces to the single market. This one will piss off the Brexiters the most. >

 

[CyclopsRock]

Also the Quiche system is two for two now on recent referenda!

Is the Quiche system about who you want to win or what you think will win?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Most of the idiots who will bang on about democracy being damaged will be the same ones who actually believed the newspapers that we would be kicking out immigrants, sealing off our borders and be completely free of any EU rules(so no big loss for the voting pool).

Literally just making shit up now.

 

[oti]

You could always buy a chocolate shoe and eat that.

 

[KingSnake]

You can't turn around a referendum in a democratic way unless you hold another one or general elections that will focus on the same topic. Anything else is pretty undemocratic.

Also the more article 50 is delayed, the more everybody suffers because of the incertitude.

 

[Bananajama]

In a Norway-style model I read we'd pay roughly the same for access but receive less back. Also, EEA doesn't cover the banking passport, which will cost us more to keep.

So same rules from EU, same business access, but no say in rules and we pay more.

Pretty much exactly what the Remain camp had said the entire time.

Norway&#8217;s average annual commitment is 447 million euro.
It's GDP is circa 500 USD Billion

UK economy is circa 5.2 bigger so I'd expect a minimum contribution level of circa 2.5 billion per year.

Quite chunky
I believe our net was 6 billion?
Gross being 18.5

I don't believe free movement will ever be off the table

I disliked the EU for the 'ever closer political union' and there retort to the Brexit vote was to make the system even more complicated to put off other countries going down the same path.

Everything else I loved.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Is the Quiche system about who you want to win or what you think will win?

It's basically just taking a dispassionate look at the poll average one or two weeks before.

But also what I want to happen does seem to then happen, so I can see how it might look that way ;-P

For reals though, there was a post in the pre-Brexit thread that I made to Crab saying if you do the whole "2/3 undecideds to status quo, 1/3 the other way" thing a week out it came to 51/49 Leave, do you want to change your prediction?

And that's almost exactly how it turned out! The polls were pretty spot on really if you didn't let wishful thinking get in way.

 

[Maledict]

I am not aware of long-term economic forecasts for the question of this size that could be taken seriously for either leaving or staying. The rationale for leaving and grounds for expecting to do better outside of the EU is that EU is overbearing, frequently damaging and inefficient. For that there are plenty of examples given earlier, I refer you to prior pages.

Frankly, the thread is talking about all this every morning. "It's so terrible, is it OK if we ignore the referendum" - <discussion around "no, it would be bad" which eventually turns into...> - "But exiting is so damaging, at this point it's criminal to let the country exit!", then I or someone else point out that no, exiting is not clearly terrible all around and the 52% who voted Leave aren't all idiots and not all their arguments are lies, then there is a question of what are these arguments, then the arguments are given (the above is a very short form, I wrote at much greater length earlier), and then it all dies down in order to repeat the next day. Sorry for the huge run-on sentence.

You need to stop pointing people back to examples that were completely taken apart by numerous posters, which you then completely ignored. No-one in the leave campaign was able to identify any either for the same reason - we already have the least regulated markets in Europe!

 

[*Splinter]

I am not aware of long-term economic forecasts for the question of this size that could be taken seriously for either leaving or staying. The rationale for leaving and grounds for expecting to do better outside of the EU is that EU is overbearing, frequently damaging and inefficient. For that there are plenty of examples given earlier, I refer you to prior pages.

Frankly, the thread is talking about all this every morning. "It's so terrible, is it OK if we ignore the referendum" - <discussion around "no, it would be bad" which eventually turns into...> - "But exiting is so damaging, at this point it's criminal to let the country exit!", then I or someone else point out that no, exiting is not clearly terrible all around and the 52% who voted Leave aren't all idiots and not all their arguments are lies, then there is a question of what are these arguments, then the arguments are given (the above is a very short form, I wrote at much greater length earlier), and then it all dies down in order to repeat the next day. Sorry for the huge run-on sentence.

But every argument you gave (previously) was so easily refuted? Crab even ran the numbers (under a very optimistic scenario) to show that in your argument we wouldn't be better off for at least 50 years, and that also assumes that nothing else of note happens in the next 50 years. But you couldn't even justify why we might reach the growth levels provided in that estimate. You gave several tiny examples and none of them held up to any scrutiny.

And despite all that, your opinion hasn't shifted in the slightest, and then you wonder why this thread keeps repeating itself?

 

[jakonovski]

Norway&#8217;s average annual commitment is 447 million euro.
It's GDP is circa 500 USD Billion

UK economy is circa 5.2 bigger so I'd expect a minimum contribution level of circa 2.5 billion per year.

Quite chunky
I believe our net was 6 billion?
Gross being 18.5

844 million per year for Norway, if I'm reading this correctly: http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.V3zFP7iLSUk

 

[Bananajama]

844 million per year for Norway, if I'm reading this correctly: http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.V3zFP7iLSUk

Oh wow - I went to one site that suggested 447 million (wasn't just a random figure plucked out of thin air)

So UK contribution would be at least 5 billion then...!

That shows a net contribution from the UK of £12.9 billion though.
So hopefully leaves plenty of negotiating power (on both sides!)

 

[accel]

You need to stop pointing people back to examples that were completely taken apart by numerous posters, which you then completely ignored. No-one in the leave campaign was able to identify any either for the same reason - we already have the least regulated markets in Europe!

But every argument you gave (previously) was so easily refuted? Crab even ran the numbers (under a very optimistic scenario) to show that in your argument we wouldn't be better off for at least 50 years, and that also assumes that nothing else of not happens in the next 50 years. But you couldn't even justify why we might reach the growth levels provided in that estimate. You gave several tiny examples and none of them held up to any scrutiny.

And despite all that, your opinion hasn't shifted in the slightest, and then you wonder why this thread keeps repeating itself?

We are reading different threads, apparently.

My central argument is and always was that the EU has been damaging in a thousand of places and that exiting the EU will allow us to start recouping the damage in many small portions. I provided examples of that damage. What you call refutations were "oh, that example is small" (yes, it is, look at my point), "oh, that was not enacted" (yes, it wasn't yet, it was delayed until after the referendum), "oh, we'd be subject to that even if we quit" (yes, but only if you view quitting as going into the sub-EU - which I don't, and so we'd be subject to that only in the temporary transition period) and the likes.

Crab's numeric experiment started with a numeric mistake which exaggerated his projection from 50-something years to catch up to 70-something years, it continues to be numerically dishonest to the leave option (because if we assume that the losses from the exit are -2.5% GDP and take the initial numbers for the UK as -1%, the base growth for both scenarios should be 1.5% and not 2% - and that's not all there is, but I didn't even bring it up, because it's just some napkin math), and in the end all it shows is that after suffering a crisis, the UK would be one crisis behind from the EU for some time until it gets even (which trivially follows from the math and doesn't need any of those tables).

I will say this, though: I did learn from the thread. I was wrong on a couple of things (eg, I wrongly said that the US government has grown under Obama, that was not true, I apologize for shooting from the hip) and the talks did nudge me to learn more. But if there was a second referendum on the same topic tomorrow, I'd have voted Leave again. Because the reasons for leaving *did not change* and they continue to be valid. What's kind of new (to me, you can call me naive for that) is that the politics haven't been prepared for that one bit.

 

[*Splinter]

Oh wow - I went to one site that suggested 447 million (wasn't just a random figure plucked out of thin air)

So UK contribution would be at least 5 billion then...!

That shows a net contribution from the UK of £12.9 billion though.
So hopefully leaves plenty of negotiating power (on both sides!)

Don't forget the banking passport, that'll be costly.

And I assume we'd like to keep the 12.5 billion EU funding (although good luck with that)

 

[Crumpo]

I am not aware of long-term economic forecasts for the question of this size that could be taken seriously for either leaving or staying. The rationale for leaving and grounds for expecting to do better outside of the EU is that EU is overbearing, frequently damaging and inefficient. For that there are plenty of examples given earlier, I refer you to prior pages.

Sorry, you know as well as I do the pages move very fast here,I haven't seen everything on all the pages. The point I was making is Remain has backed up their opinion with forecasts for economic AND social impacts of Brexit, whereas I have seen none for Leave.

Anecdotes =/= forecast, however if you are referring to analysis rather than "bendy bananas" then I'd love to read it.

I will dig out for you the figures on efficiency (i.e. cost of just "running" the EU structure vs. total budget) for the EU; the waste is actually one of the lowest against a benchmark.

If you're talking productivity ("I don't think what they do is a good use of money") then again that's so subjective that any kind of analysis is redundant.

I'll just underscore my point-a lot of the complaints of leave can be broken down by evidence or forecasts, whereas very little, if any of remain's points can.

 

[GamerMax73]

What I can make so far of the two future options:

* May - the worst fear is that under her we just exit the EU into a sub-EU (EEA) and live there until the next crisis;

Not a good choice.

No, as if CCTV and surveillance in this country wasn't bad enough - the worst fear is needing a passport to leave town and having to be back before curfew...

 

[ClosingADoor]

I am not aware of long-term economic forecasts for the question of this size that could be taken seriously for either leaving or staying. The rationale for leaving and grounds for expecting to do better outside of the EU is that EU is overbearing, frequently damaging and inefficient. For that there are plenty of examples given earlier, I refer you to prior pages.

Do you seriously believe this? If literally 100% of the world economists, leaders and other experts are saying this will be bad for the British economy, how can you say "well, I don't know if we can take any forecast seriously?"

I can't anymore... This is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what literally everyone is saying so you don't have to see your own narrative is really, really wrong.

 

[Bananajama]

Don't forget the banking passport, that'll be costly.

And I assume we'd like to keep the 12.5 billion EU funding (although good luck with that)

Exactly

The EU know the UK want/need that banking passport.

They'll make us pay for it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

If you view quitting as complete loss of access to the single market and are still projecting some sort of long term boom. Then quite frankly you're bonkers.

An EEA style exit with somehow retained access to the banking passport and preservation of Euro clearing. With everything that goes with that. Leading to being better long term. Okay. Maybe. Unlikely but sure whatever.

Complete detachment from the EU. And everything rosier long term? Completely bonkers.

 

[Crumpo]

Exactly

The EU know the UK want/need that banking passport.

They'll make us pay for it.

May said yesterday that protecting financial services was her priority...I wonder if implicitly this meant she would back down and keep freedom of movement?

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

My grandmother voted leave and in her own words she said: "I didn't know what I was voting for."

Another older person (early 70s) said he voted leave and his friend did too because (as someone who flies air balloons) he received a letter stating he had to get an official certificate stating he could speak English... as per EU regulations.

These people are complete idiots. Even if that letter were true, and it was an EU regulation, he would've voted leave and tossed the entire economy and futures of generations to the wolves all because of one minor inconvenience.

"Bu-bu-but the older folk have more experience. They know better!"

 

[ClosingADoor]

My grandmother voted leave and in her own words she said: "I didn't know what I was voting for."

Another older person (early 70s) said he voted leave and his friend did too because (as someone who flies air balloons) he received a letter stating he had to get an official certificate stating he could speak English... as per EU regulations.

These people are complete idiots. Even if that letter were true, and it was an EU regulation, he would've voted leave and tossed the entire economy and futures of generations all because of one minor inconvenience.

"Bu-bu-but the older folk have more experience. They know better!"

We seriously need to start fining people for spreading all those lies and stuff about EU regulations. How people can keep getting away with that bullshit is getting beyond me at the moment. 99% of complaints people have against the EU seem to be about either totally reasonable regulation that is just framed in a ridiculous way by anti-EU people, or blaming the EU for the failings of the own local government. All that stuff people spread around as part of the Leave campaign should be investigated as fraud.

 

[*Splinter]

We are reading a different thread, apparently.

My central argument is and always was that the EU has been damaging in a thousand of places and that exiting the EU will allow us to start recouping the damage in many small portions. I provided examples of that damage. What you call refutations were "oh, that example is small" (yes, it is, look at my point), "oh, that was not enacted" (yes, it wasn't yet, it was delayed until after the referendum), "oh, we'd be subject to that even if we quit" (yes, but only if you view quitting as going into the sub-EU - which I don't, and so we'd be subject to that only in the temporary transition period) and the likes.

Crab's numeric experiment started with a numeric mistake which exaggerated his projection from 50-something years to catch up to 70-something years, it continues to be numerically dishonest to the leave option (because if we assume that the losses from the exit are -2.5% GDP and take the initial numbers for the UK as -1%, the base growth for both scenarios should be 1.5% and not 2% - and that's not all there is, but I didn't even bring it up, because it's just some napkin math), and in the end all it shows is that after suffering a crisis, the UK would be one crisis behind from the EU.

I will say this, though: I did learn from the thread. I was wrong on a couple of things (eg, I wrongly said that the US government has grown under Obama, that was not true) and the talks did nudge me to learn more. But if the referendum was tomorrow, I'd have voted Leave again.

Arguments were made under the assumption that we'd still want some degree of trading with the EU - because if you think we can do without that then frankly you're wasting everyone's time.
I'm also not claiming your examples are invalid because they are "small". I'm saying that these are the best examples you can give and still didn't hold up to scrutiny. The fact that they are small means you weren't trying to find big examples, this was literally the best you had.

And that "napkin math" was extremely generous to your arguments. You complain about the 1 or 2% short term loss, when there is nothing to suggest we'd then achieve the 2.5% gain for the rest of time, in fact there's nothing to suggest we'd ever be better off, it's pure wishful thinking.

 

[accel]

If you view quitting as complete loss of access to the single market and are still projecting some sort of long term boom. Then quite frankly you're bonkers.

An EEA style exit with somehow retained access to the banking passport and preservation of Euro clearing. With everything that goes with that. Leading to being better long term. Okay. Maybe. Unlikely but sure whatever.

Complete detachment from the EU. And everything rosier long term? Completely bonkers.

Here's what I want, I linked it before:

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf

Any economic forecasts for a question of this size (either for Leave or for Remain) are bonkers in that there are tons of moving parts which heavily affect the figures. There is too much uncertainty.

Heck, take a look at the economic forecasts for the Remain side, which are supposedly there and in agreement with each other - they all agree just that there will be damage, the extent of that damage varies wildly. We just had -4% GDP growth get transformed into -2.5% GDP growth for Christ's sakes. What is the forecast going to be in 6 months? -1%? -10%? You can't use numbers from these forecasts, you just can't. You can only look at what they are going from. And, yes, there is going to be short-term damage, and it can be severe, especially if the UK negotiates stupidly.

But anyway, if you want to see some numbers, any numbers from the Leave side, just as proof that someone somewhere is counting something, there's plenty of that. Here's one example which says that the cost of the EU for the UK is 10% GDP:

http://www.timcongdon4ukip.com/docs/UKIP Cost of the EU.pdf

I am *sure* this report is exaggerating. But it is also undoubtful that there are grains of truth in it. So, if anyone just wants any numbers, no matter that they are useless (like those -4% transforming into -2.5% without blinking an eye or those negative projections from Remain which vary enormously in their numbers), here you go.

 

[jakonovski]

The dark underbelly of the EU involves the euro and austerity. The UK doesn't use the euro and Leavers keep voting for austerity.

 

[EdwardTeach]

it's just some napkin math

which trivially follows from the math

Why are you saying math? Are you an idiot?

 

[Bananajama]

May said yesterday that protecting financial services was her priority...I wonder if implicitly this meant she would back down and keep freedom of movement?

I'd be down with that.

I know a lot of Leave voters wouldn't.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Here's what I want, I linked it before:

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf

I am somewhat skeptical that the EU will helpfully disintegrate on the time table given.

 

[Crumpo]

Here's what I want, I linked it before:

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf

400 page doc, looks like a book, says it's no longer about partisanship...25 pages in,complains about the BBC and how biased they are, includes a quote stating that EU laws are like a "rising tide"...I'll read more later but this reads more like a propaganda document than a reasoned framework for how to leave.


Also, exec summary doesn't summarise a position...if, after 400 pages of analysis you can't glean some kind of opinion then we are truly fucked.

 

[w1ck3dn1nj4]

Quite the precedent for a common law country you guys are proposing: economy trumps democracy.

When said democracy involves duping voters into believing outrageous lies, sure I’ll take economy any day. A more democratic exercise would be to hold a second referendum. At least voters are more aware now and they can’t peddle the same lies twice.

 

[ClosingADoor]

But anyway, if you want to see some numbers, any numbers from the Leave side, just as proof that someone somewhere is counting them, there's plenty of that. Here's one example which says that the cost of the EU for the UK is 10% GDP:

http://www.timcongdon4ukip.com/docs/UKIP Cost of the EU.pdf

I am *sure* this report is exaggerating. But it is also undoubtful that there are grains of truth in it. So, if you just want any numbers, no matter that they are useless (like those -4% transforming into -2.5% without blinking an eye or those negative projections from Remain which vary enormously in their numbers), here you go.

The wording in that document does not make it seem like a neutral source to say the least....

That huge 5% cost because of EU regulation also a bit shady. How much of that regulation was needed anyway and is for the positive? There are complaints in there about landfill and renewable energy regulations.

Excuse me if I don't take documents like this very serious:

- " We should not allow a foreign bureaucracy to squander a colossal chunk of our national output for a purpose that in fact we despise."
- "Is this not madness on a gigantic scale?"
- "From a constitutional standpoint, the European Union is a monstrosity."