The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

Munchkin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

As much as I'm happy that Scottish Independence didn't win the day, I did take note of the incredible bias of the media, the BBC in particular, in favour of the 'YES' campaign. Certainly they will throw scraps to the opposition, they wouldn't want to appear too obvious, but generally the bias was in favour of 'YES' campaign, with that loathsome toad Nick Robinson leading the way.
There were plenty of protests at the time, including a protest outside of the BBC Scotlands HQ. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but I do think your opinion may be slightly coloured if you have failed to see any bias.

Why do people keep using the term "toad"??

Anyway, when you say "yes" I presume you mean "no"?

Please, by all means, point me to one incident where Nick Robinson displayed bias in front of the camera for the BBC during the IndyRef. I watched oodles of coverage and saw none. The "Yes" campaign, and the SNP, are desperate to pick fights with what is seen by them as the "Westminster machine" (including the BBC) - it is a win/win for them. Their supporters love it (makes it look like they are sticking two fingers up to the "establishment"), it portrays them as underdogs which is always politically helpful (the Leave campaign is resorting to this now, despite raising more funds and having lead the polls last week) and it raises the possibility of the BBC becoming more favourable to them going forward. It's like Mourinho saying before a game that the referee has in the past treated his team badly. Don't be fooled by the protests, this was a well oiled and cynical operation from the SNP, and if you think New Labour were awful for their use of spin, the SNP makes them look amateurish.

For what it's worth, I actually thought the BBC Scotland coverage went the other way. Brian Taylor came across as a "Yes" supporter in his reports, brimming with enthusiasm for independence - and did you manage to catch the live BBC Scotland IndyRef debate? Did you think the studio audience was neutral?? I'm not sure a single question came from a "No" supporter, which is surprising given 55% of those who voted went that way.

I deleted the 'Toad' as I think it was a bit strong, although my feelings about him aren't far from that. Yes, I meant 'No' I corrected that.

One incident? Ok:


On 11 September 2014, as part of the coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Nick Robinson had a dispute with Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond. The previous day Robinson had reported that Lloyds Bank and RBS would be moving their registered offices from Scotland to London in the event of a "Yes" vote.[33] In the exchange[34] Robinson asked Salmond two questions: the first about the economic impact of RBS moving its headquarters, the second more general. Salmond gave answers to the two questions, and claimed that an investigation into the BBC's actions would be sought given that rules regarding the release of market-sensitive data had been broken. After the 4 minute 30 second answer, Robinson continued, now off-mic, to ask further questions and so was accused of heckling by Salmond.[35] Salmond gave another 2 minute answer to the off-mic questions. The entire exchange lasted for 7 minutes 40 seconds. A report was shown on all BBC evening news programmes later that day, edited to show only the second part of Robinson's original two-part question before cutting to his narration in which he claimed Salmond had not answered his question but had instead chosen to lay accusations against the BBC.[36] The BBC received complaints from viewers for the implication that Salmond had not answered a question put to him, and there was protest in Glasgow.[37] The BBC responded: "The BBC considers that the questions were valid and the overall report balanced and impartial, in line with our editorial guidelines.[38]
In November 2014, Robinson was covering the count for the Rochester and Strood by-election. He was seen smiling whilst posing for a photograph with Britain First candidate and deputy leader Jayda Fransen. The far right-wing party promotes preserving "ancestral ethnic and cultural heritage" within the UK whilst being opposed to Scottish independence, non-Christian religious interests and [social] Liberalism.[39] Due to the fact that Robinson had been accused of bias on these issues before, he was now accused, by some, on Twitter, of being sympathetic to the party's values and friendly with the leadership. Responding, he said he was not affiliated with the party leadership and did not check who the photo was for beforehand, presuming that she was "a worker at the count".[40]

NicksBias

If I remember correctly, Nick Robinson edited his own material and so would be responsible for what appeared to be a blatant lie.

Munchkin wrote:Oh, come on, fes. You know full well that is very clear evidence of bias. The heckling from Robinson itself is proof enough.

The issue isn't whether or not Salmond gave an adequate response. The issue is in how Robinson edited the exchange and claiming that Salmond didn't respond. He did. Robinson was caught out lying.

The BBC investigating itself is laughable. I will not give credence to their own findings.

Robinsons history and connections with the Conservative Party are well known, however, I wouldn't read too much into his posing with Britain First. I should have edited that piece out really.

As to the BBC putting out a balanced audience? I can't remember my thinking on it at the time, so can't really comment. I do know there were question marks over whether the audiences were balanced over the various debates but I do think they tend to be fairly balanced, including the EU debates.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Oh, come on, fes. You know full well that is very clear evidence of bias. The heckling from Robinson itself is proof enough.

The issue isn't whether or not Salmond gave an adequate response. The issue is in how Robinson edited the exchange and claiming that Salmond didn't respond. He did. Robinson was caught out lying.

The BBC investigating itself is laughable. I will not give credence to their own findings.

Robinsons history and connections with the Conservative Party are well known, however, I wouldn't read too much into his posing with Britain First. I should have edited that piece out really.

As to the BBC putting out a balanced audience? I can't remember my thinking on it at the time, so can't really comment. I do know there were question marks over whether the audiences were balanced over the various debates but I do think they tend to be fairly balanced, including the EU debates.

Well that was the issue for me!! For the record, his response was usually along the lines of there not being that many people actually employed in Scotland as a consequence of those institutions being headquartered here, which I always thought was rather demeaning to those who were, and would be faced with redundancy or the prospect of being forced to relocate to another country.

On the heckling point, is that what they now call a journalist asking a politician a question? I'd suggest we have more heckling in our society in which case, particularly, as was the case in the IndyRef, when politicians were so often caught out without any credible responses.

Salmond got an easy ride with the Scottish media, and he just found it annoying that the BBC journalists south of the border, and the "Murdoch" Times as he called it, refused to extend him the same courtesy.

SecretFly wrote:I always trusted the BBC beyond most networks to provide unbiased news - direct, blunt, and coldly clinical.

But yep, ever since that Robinson fiasco, they've lost that mystique.  It's all gone American - and maybe the editorial desire is actually to go down that route - news from a perspective, news loaded with network philosophy bias - entertainment 'opinion' based news..... FOX?

The old world has really disappeared.  You have to read through a lot of material and look at a lot of different perspectives to isolate a 'truth' (or version of it) you yourself are comfortable with.  

'Trust nobody' is the modern maxim.

I have found the entire debate profoundly depressing. The media coverage has simply intensified that feeling. Both sides have produced dud numbers and fatuous arguments; very few journalists seem capable of rigorous interview and many columnists, most of all Toynbee, seem to inhabit a world that I do not recognise. I approach Thursday with one overwhelming thought, and that is that politics in the UK is broken and that must change. Now.

I think that the current political failure exists in great depth throughout the system. It starts with the classification of left and right which would be better expressed as a split between authoritarian or libertarian. The structuring of political parties does not help, the creation of professional politicians, and indeed political dynasties (Kinnock, Benn, Churchill), has lowered quality. The largely LibDem creation of the MP as a social worker adds further confusion. Add in sound bite politics and the application of mass marketing techniques to stimulate emotional responses to what is supposed to be an intellectual process and the current mess is explicable. I shall return to it in subsequent posts.

The fundamental point about Thursday’s vote is that it is a choice between two possible futures – both of which are uncertain to an immeasurable degree. Once all the economic forth is discarded (any forecast that comes without a measure of how likely it is while claiming accuracies of 1% or less is clearly drivel – or intended to deceive) the question becomes one of how you prefer to be governed. If it is by directly elected politicians who regularly submit themselves and their policies to a plebiscite, then you prefer out. If you think it better to rely on an appointed elite to set policy, then vote in.

A huge amount has been made of access to the single market, most of which has been bilge. I have done my own research on this (you can too – Google is your friend and World Bank is pretty impartial and comprehensible). In 2014 the UK GDP was about £2,000 billion. Of that about 28% was exports, of which about 44% went to EU. The value of our exports to EU was thus about £246 Bn. The trade weighted average import tariff of our largest EU partners is 1.5%. Thus the import tariffs that would have been paid on these exports is about £3.7 billion (I’m rounding figures up and sensibly). Out net contribution (i.e. after rebates, CAP payments and one off grants) to the EU in 2014 was £7.1 billion, so we are actually paying almost £2 in cash for every £1 of tariff that we save. That makes no sense to anyone other than a politician.
Moreover, there is no such thing (for an exporter) as a single market. A product that sells is France is unlikely to sell in Germany without some modification– for a start the instruction manual will need to be in a different language. Moreover, the marketing and advertising will be completely different. Our largest single export partner is the United States, followed by Germany, Netherlands Switzerland and France. Exports to US are twice the size of exports to France.

In terms of growth (i.e. which export markets are likely to be larger in future) the Eurozone is stagnating at about 0.3%. The future lies in Asia, where growth rates are 5% plus. The EU is, increasingly, a backwater. Worse than that, the (self-inflicted) problems of the Euro mean that the EU’s future is far from certain. At least some of the commercial establishment wants to stay in. Why? Because EU regulation is a barrier to entry, and thus protects the current incumbents. That does not make it the right decision for the UK (nor actually the right long term decision for the current incumbents, but then famously the City doesn’t do long term). Why would any country, let alone the 5th largest economy in the world and the world’s financial centre want to pay to retain access to a market that has near zero growth and a currency time bomb?

We come now to migration. The simple, unadorned fact is that the UK has failed to get a grip of migration for years. Moreover, the debate has long been poisoned by halfwit politicians and commentators who can’t discern between nationalism and racism, let alone accept that the former is as essential to understanding what is going on as the latter is abhorrent. However, even if we did get a grip, we would not be able to regulate the flow from the EU, which is about half (although many suspect that this is an underestimate) or 160,000 per year. That is because the EU requires the free movement of labour. Restricting movement in any way requires us to leave.

So, is migration a good or a bad thing? Well, it depends. If a job needs filling and it can’t be filled by UK resident, using a migrant enables growth. Which is a good thing, but how good depends on what that migrant does with his or her pay. A UK national will spend and invest most of their pay inside the UK. That pay therefore gets recycled as further growth for the recipients of that spend. Economists call this the multiplier effect and it is a fundamental part of growth and it has exponential tendencies (the extra income for the food seller comes out as profit, which then gets reinvested etc). However, if that migrant choses to live packed into a room, spend as little as possible and send the rest of his money to his home country then the multiplier effect is much reduced. The overall effect is still good, but not as good as using a UK resident. If you then consider the additional burdens on infrastructure (housing, transport, water, education, health) some costs will accrue. Again, if the worker is spending some or all of his or her wealth in the UK it probably covers it. As money is repatriated then the tax take (through 20% VAT on sales) diminishes and the net gain becomes harder to measure.
Is uncontrolled migration a problem at the moment? It depends where you live and how much you earn. In some areas it certainly is. Is future migration potentially a problem? Well, the UK has a very high standard of living compared to those countries that have recently joined or are about to join the EU. That would imply that their people will come here seeking work. Now, Cameron’s reforms (note that these are actually future reforms because they do not yet exist in EU law and there is no guarantee that they will). And note that those reforms rather rely on the Border Service trying to find and deport unemployed EU migrants after they have been in UK for 6 months. It is a recipe for yet more failure. If you wish to control who lives in the UK then you need to vote out.

And don’t listen to the drivel that voting our means that we’ll be short of labour. Controlled immigration is not zero immigration. It works in US, Australia and in fact most of the rest of the world. Note also, as I showed above, that leaving the single market would actually save the UK money. So if the choice is between controlled immigration and single market membership, out is the way to go.

So that’s democracy, economic management and immigration. That really only leaves security and ex-pats. The latter is simple. No EU member state has said that it will take any action against any UK nationals resident in their country. Reason? Well firstly it would make no sense and secondly EU law would make it very, very difficult. It is a non-issue.

Moving on to security. Firstly, let’s just remember that the reason for peace in Europe (well, northern Europe at least) is NATO and nuclear weapons. And thinking about it, it took NATO (not the EU) to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia. To argue that our membership of the EU is important to NATO or our security is drivel. We were NATO members long before we joined the EEC and NATO was formed long before the fore-runners of the EEC. Moreover, the current EU military capability is risible. Any future one (and there is one) will be equally risible as it will not include the US. Some old Generals wrote a letter saying EU membership was important. At least one of the claimed signatories had not agreed it and another has recently changed his mind. There is simply no way in which the military security of the UK is in any way dependent upon the EU.

What about terrorism? As anyone who knows anything about the subject will tell you the key weapon in fighting terrorism is intelligence. The best intelligence in the world (they will also tell you) comes from the Five Eyes group (UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ). They do not share it. There is, of course, other information from other countries. The UK may well share information with France or Spain. Maybe Germany. But probably not Bulgaria or Romania. So any EU intelligence organisation is not getting the best stuff that the UK has. One of the problems of the free movement of people is that we have no mechanism to stop EU nationals whom we know are involved in terrorism if the information comes from non EU sources (which is likely). Some argue that if we leave EU we won’t get access to EU data. As I have shown, the EU data is not top quality and we have better stuff anyway. Moreover, as EU is likely to want stuff from us I do not believe that leaving EU will preclude intelligence sharing.

My final point is this. The debate has shown that the current political system in this country routinely knowingly publishes inaccurate data, seeks to inflame emotions rather than win arguments and stifles dissent rather than encouraging better. Given the current level of polls it is surely symptomatic of a failed system that all parties (bar one) have adopted a policy likely to be rejected by at least 45% of the electorate. How can they be so out of touch? How can the “professional” political reporting establishment have missed this so badly? How can a government publish such drivel as the £9 million leaflet, a Chancellor threaten vengeance taxes simply for voting out or a Prime Minister forecast war? It’s not good enough.

I expected better than this farce. I want, no, I demand improvement; you should too. The only way to get change is to exercise the sensible option. Vote for improvement. Vote to remove some of the buffoons in Westminster and all of the ones in Brussels. Vote because you love democracy and freedom.

Vote for whatever reason you like, but vote OUT.

Volcanicash wrote:Economics has never been my main reason for voting leave this Thursday, but these articles and also this video are some of the reasons not all(I have come across these only recently)  I think we would be ok, but I still fully expect a remain win so its all hypothetical…..  

http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave/

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86110

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX71EKDKiY

I thought I’d also share this post (not by me) from another forum which I thought some on here may find interesting as I share some of its sentiments.

I have found the entire debate profoundly depressing. The media coverage has simply intensified that feeling. Both sides have produced dud numbers and fatuous arguments; very few journalists seem capable of rigorous interview and many columnists, most of all Toynbee, seem to inhabit a world that I do not recognise. I approach Thursday with one overwhelming thought, and that is that politics in the UK is broken and that must change. Now.

I think that the current political failure exists in great depth throughout the system. It starts with the classification of left and right which would be better expressed as a split between authoritarian or libertarian. The structuring of political parties does not help, the creation of professional politicians, and indeed political dynasties (Kinnock, Benn, Churchill), has lowered quality. The largely LibDem creation of the MP as a social worker adds further confusion. Add in sound bite politics and the application of mass marketing techniques to stimulate emotional responses to what is supposed to be an intellectual process and the current mess is explicable. I shall return to it in subsequent posts.

The fundamental point about Thursday’s vote is that it is a choice between two possible futures – both of which are uncertain to an immeasurable degree. Once all the economic forth is discarded (any forecast that comes without a measure of how likely it is while claiming accuracies of 1% or less is clearly drivel – or intended to deceive) the question becomes one of how you prefer to be governed. If it is by directly elected politicians who regularly submit themselves and their policies to a plebiscite, then you prefer out. If you think it better to rely on an appointed elite to set policy, then vote in.

A huge amount has been made of access to the single market, most of which has been bilge. I have done my own research on this (you can too – Google is your friend and World Bank is pretty impartial and comprehensible). In 2014 the UK GDP was about £2,000 billion. Of that about 28% was exports, of which about 44% went to EU. The value of our exports to EU was thus about £246 Bn. The trade weighted average import tariff of our largest EU partners is 1.5%. Thus the import tariffs that would have been paid on these exports is about £3.7 billion (I’m rounding figures up and sensibly). Out net contribution (i.e. after rebates, CAP payments and one off grants) to the EU in 2014 was £7.1 billion, so we are actually paying almost £2 in cash for every £1 of tariff that we save. That makes no sense to anyone other than a politician.
Moreover, there is no such thing (for an exporter) as a single market. A product that sells is France is unlikely to sell in Germany without some modification– for a start the instruction manual will need to be in a different language. Moreover, the marketing and advertising will be completely different. Our largest single export partner is the United States, followed by Germany, Netherlands Switzerland and France. Exports to US are twice the size of exports to France.

In terms of growth (i.e. which export markets are likely to be larger in future) the Eurozone is stagnating at about 0.3%. The future lies in Asia, where growth rates are 5% plus. The EU is, increasingly, a backwater. Worse than that, the (self-inflicted) problems of the Euro mean that the EU’s future is far from certain. At least some of the commercial establishment wants to stay in. Why? Because EU regulation is a barrier to entry, and thus protects the current incumbents. That does not make it the right decision for the UK (nor actually the right long term decision for the current incumbents, but then famously the City doesn’t do long term). Why would any country, let alone the 5th largest economy in the world and the world’s financial centre want to pay to retain access to a market that has near zero growth and a currency time bomb?

We come now to migration. The simple, unadorned fact is that the UK has failed to get a grip of migration for years. Moreover, the debate has long been poisoned by halfwit politicians and commentators who can’t discern between nationalism and racism, let alone accept that the former is as essential to understanding what is going on as the latter is abhorrent. However, even if we did get a grip, we would not be able to regulate the flow from the EU, which is about half (although many suspect that this is an underestimate) or 160,000 per year. That is because the EU requires the free movement of labour. Restricting movement in any way requires us to leave.

So, is migration a good or a bad thing? Well, it depends. If a job needs filling and it can’t be filled by UK resident, using a migrant enables growth. Which is a good thing, but how good depends on what that migrant does with his or her pay. A UK national will spend and invest most of their pay inside the UK. That pay therefore gets recycled as further growth for the recipients of that spend. Economists call this the multiplier effect and it is a fundamental part of growth and it has exponential tendencies (the extra income for the food seller comes out as profit, which then gets reinvested etc). However, if that migrant choses to live packed into a room, spend as little as possible and send the rest of his money to his home country then the multiplier effect is much reduced. The overall effect is still good, but not as good as using a UK resident. If you then consider the additional burdens on infrastructure (housing, transport, water, education, health) some costs will accrue. Again, if the worker is spending some or all of his or her wealth in the UK it probably covers it. As money is repatriated then the tax take (through 20% VAT on sales) diminishes and the net gain becomes harder to measure.
Is uncontrolled migration a problem at the moment? It depends where you live and how much you earn. In some areas it certainly is. Is future migration potentially a problem? Well, the UK has a very high standard of living compared to those countries that have recently joined or are about to join the EU. That would imply that their people will come here seeking work. Now, Cameron’s reforms (note that these are actually future reforms because they do not yet exist in EU law and there is no guarantee that they will). And note that those reforms rather rely on the Border Service trying to find and deport unemployed EU migrants after they have been in UK for 6 months. It is a recipe for yet more failure. If you wish to control who lives in the UK then you need to vote out.

And don’t listen to the drivel that voting our means that we’ll be short of labour. Controlled immigration is not zero immigration. It works in US, Australia and in fact most of the rest of the world. Note also, as I showed above, that leaving the single market would actually save the UK money. So if the choice is between controlled immigration and single market membership, out is the way to go.

So that’s democracy, economic management and immigration. That really only leaves security and ex-pats. The latter is simple. No EU member state has said that it will take any action against any UK nationals resident in their country. Reason? Well firstly it would make no sense and secondly EU law would make it very, very difficult. It is a non-issue.

Moving on to security. Firstly, let’s just remember that the reason for peace in Europe (well, northern Europe at least) is NATO and nuclear weapons. And thinking about it, it took NATO (not the EU) to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia. To argue that our membership of the EU is important to NATO or our security is drivel. We were NATO members long before we joined the EEC and NATO was formed long before the fore-runners of the EEC. Moreover, the current EU military capability is risible. Any future one (and there is one) will be equally risible as it will not include the US. Some old Generals wrote a letter saying EU membership was important. At least one of the claimed signatories had not agreed it and another has recently changed his mind. There is simply no way in which the military security of the UK is in any way dependent upon the EU.

What about terrorism? As anyone who knows anything about the subject will tell you the key weapon in fighting terrorism is intelligence. The best intelligence in the world (they will also tell you) comes from the Five Eyes group (UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ). They do not share it. There is, of course, other information from other countries. The UK may well share information with France or Spain. Maybe Germany. But probably not Bulgaria or Romania. So any EU intelligence organisation is not getting the best stuff that the UK has. One of the problems of the free movement of people is that we have no mechanism to stop EU nationals whom we know are involved in terrorism if the information comes from non EU sources (which is likely). Some argue that if we leave EU we won’t get access to EU data. As I have shown, the EU data is not top quality and we have better stuff anyway. Moreover, as EU is likely to want stuff from us I do not believe that leaving EU will preclude intelligence sharing.

My final point is this. The debate has shown that the current political system in this country routinely knowingly publishes inaccurate data, seeks to inflame emotions rather than win arguments and stifles dissent rather than encouraging better. Given the current level of polls it is surely symptomatic of a failed system that all parties (bar one) have adopted a policy likely to be rejected by at least 45% of the electorate. How can they be so out of touch? How can the “professional” political reporting establishment have missed this so badly? How can a government publish such drivel as the £9 million leaflet, a Chancellor threaten vengeance taxes simply for voting out or a Prime Minister forecast war? It’s not good enough.

I expected better than this farce. I want, no, I demand improvement; you should too. The only way to get change is to exercise the sensible option. Vote for improvement. Vote to remove some of the buffoons in Westminster and all of the ones in Brussels. Vote because you love democracy and freedom.

Vote for whatever reason you like, but vote OUT.

Ent wrote:A lot of the arguments posted above don't stack up but I want to address his point re current state of politics.

I firmly believe we get the politics and politicians we deserve. 4 million people voted for ukip and their brand of spouting mistruths and nonsense.

If one of the camps were completely honest the other would continue in the same vein and win easily - because the electorate are lazy and stupid. In the information era it is easy to inform yourself and people just don't bother.

This referendum has really show cased the worst in people, every radio phone in I listen to there are people showing intolerance to almost a level of hate towards immigrants. Distrust of our colleagues in Europe etc

I find it throughly depressing and am wondering what is so great about Britain currently.

Hero wrote:One bet I'd advise Duty to make after tonight's debate, Ruth Davidson to become PM within next 15 years.

Munchkin wrote:

Ent wrote:A lot of the arguments posted above don't stack up but I want to address his point re current state of politics.

I firmly believe we get the politics and politicians we deserve. 4 million people voted for ukip and their brand of spouting mistruths and nonsense.

If one of the camps were completely honest the other would continue in the same vein and win easily - because the electorate are lazy and stupid. In the information era it is easy to inform yourself and people just don't bother.

This referendum has really show cased the worst in people, every radio phone in I listen to there are people showing intolerance to almost a level of hate towards immigrants. Distrust of our colleagues in Europe etc

I find it throughly depressing and am wondering what is so great about Britain currently.

Seems like you only see one side of the debate, Ent. That's part of the problem. "It's not us it's them"

Ent wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Ent wrote:A lot of the arguments posted above don't stack up but I want to address his point re current state of politics.

I firmly believe we get the politics and politicians we deserve. 4 million people voted for ukip and their brand of spouting mistruths and nonsense.

If one of the camps were completely honest the other would continue in the same vein and win easily - because the electorate are lazy and stupid. In the information era it is easy to inform yourself and people just don't bother.

This referendum has really show cased the worst in people, every radio phone in I listen to there are people showing intolerance to almost a level of hate towards immigrants. Distrust of our colleagues in Europe etc

I find it throughly depressing and am wondering what is so great about Britain currently.

Seems like you only see one side of the debate, Ent. That's part of the problem. "It's not us it's them"

It's everyone, the referendum has shown the uk public in a very poor light in my opinion, constant lies, mistruths, scare mongering, ill informed ramblings, prejudice.

All leaves a bitter taste, why should we expect better from the politicians when the people are probably worse.

Volcanicash wrote:Economics has never been my main reason for voting leave this Thursday, but these articles and also this video are some of the reasons not all(I have come across these only recently)  I think we would be ok, but I still fully expect a remain win so its all hypothetical…..  

Alex_Germany wrote:

Volcanicash wrote:Economics has never been my main reason for voting leave this Thursday, but these articles and also this video are some of the reasons not all(I have come across these only recently)  I think we would be ok, but I still fully expect a remain win so its all hypothetical…..  

A lot of people struggle with economics. The question then, is why are they (or you) not listening to the experts?

A lot of people struggle with medicine - but they go to the Doctor for advice. But with economics, people who claim they struggle then turn around and completely dismiss the forecasts.

The IMF has a central range forecast and says a Brexit will impact the UK GDP by 1.5% to 7%, compared to Remain. There's a lot of number crunching in that, and various economics consultancies, banks, the UK statistical agency etc have done their maths and there is, in economic terms, unprecedented agreement about the economic damage.

The currency markets are a lot more pessimistic. They are basically saying a Brexit means a 20% pay cut. That will enable some people to sell more, so the end result is a fall in GDP of a lot less than 20%. But why would you vote for a 20% pay cut - even if you can then sell a little bit more, you still end up worse off.

Whilst the Remain camp has not been completely honest, they have avoided the outright lies that characterise the Brexit camp, such as:
- Turkey is going to join the EU in the near future
- We'll get back £350 million per week (so we can give it all to the NHS and all to Farmers and all to .....
- We will be forced to send troops to support a European army.

I would expect a Brexit to reduce levels of immigration, but mainly by making the UK a less successful economy, and hence a less desirable place to come and work. Reducing immigration is difficult - which is why non EU immigration exceeds immigration from the EU. If a Government reduces EU immigration, non EU immigration is likely to rise to make up the shortfall in workers.

A lot of areas of untouched by Brexit. It won't make any difference to the threat of terrorism - so I'd disagree with both sides on that.

And then, Brexiters come back to something like "freedom". What is freedom? Is is the freedom to block travellers from other EU countries? But what about our freedom to travel and work and live across the EU? What about our freedom to sell our products across the EU, and buy products from across the EU, without some dumb official saying "you have to pay 4% duty" or "it must comply with standard XYZ (which is designed to protect our local producers). Or the right to travel across the EU and make mobile phone calls without being price gouged. Or the right to come back from Calais and not have some customs official say you can only bring in six bottles of wine per person.

So please don't vote for us all to have a pay cut and more austerity. I'm not sure about you, but I don't really need those.

Turkey has about as much chance of joining the EU by 2020 as Istanbul being renamed Constantinople in a revived Byzantine empire.

Volcanicash wrote:Economics has never been my main reason for voting leave this Thursday, but these articles and also this video are some of the reasons not all(I have come across these only recently)  I think we would be ok, .

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:One bet I'd advise Duty to make after tonight's debate, Ruth Davidson to become PM within next 15 years.

I've been trying to find a bookmaker to take me on about Farage's (possibly inevitable) defection to the Tory party.

No takers.

Mind you, I believe Ladbrokes have it odds-on that he won't be UKIP leader on Monday.

Not sure about Ruth Davidson, I'm a fan of Jacob Rees-Mogg to ascend to the highest post in a decade or so, but then his background may count against him.

Volcanicash wrote:Economics has never been my main reason for voting leave this Thursday, but these articles and also this video are some of the reasons not all(I have come across these only recently)  I think we would be ok, but I still fully expect a remain win so its all hypothetical…..  

http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave/

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86110

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX71EKDKiY

I thought I’d also share this post (not by me) from another forum which I thought some on here may find interesting as I share some of its sentiments.

I have found the entire debate profoundly depressing. The media coverage has simply intensified that feeling. Both sides have produced dud numbers and fatuous arguments; very few journalists seem capable of rigorous interview and many columnists, most of all Toynbee, seem to inhabit a world that I do not recognise. I approach Thursday with one overwhelming thought, and that is that politics in the UK is broken and that must change. Now.

I think that the current political failure exists in great depth throughout the system. It starts with the classification of left and right which would be better expressed as a split between authoritarian or libertarian. The structuring of political parties does not help, the creation of professional politicians, and indeed political dynasties (Kinnock, Benn, Churchill), has lowered quality. The largely LibDem creation of the MP as a social worker adds further confusion. Add in sound bite politics and the application of mass marketing techniques to stimulate emotional responses to what is supposed to be an intellectual process and the current mess is explicable. I shall return to it in subsequent posts.

The fundamental point about Thursday’s vote is that it is a choice between two possible futures – both of which are uncertain to an immeasurable degree. Once all the economic forth is discarded (any forecast that comes without a measure of how likely it is while claiming accuracies of 1% or less is clearly drivel – or intended to deceive) the question becomes one of how you prefer to be governed. If it is by directly elected politicians who regularly submit themselves and their policies to a plebiscite, then you prefer out. If you think it better to rely on an appointed elite to set policy, then vote in.

A huge amount has been made of access to the single market, most of which has been bilge. I have done my own research on this (you can too – Google is your friend and World Bank is pretty impartial and comprehensible). In 2014 the UK GDP was about £2,000 billion. Of that about 28% was exports, of which about 44% went to EU. The value of our exports to EU was thus about £246 Bn. The trade weighted average import tariff of our largest EU partners is 1.5%. Thus the import tariffs that would have been paid on these exports is about £3.7 billion (I’m rounding figures up and sensibly). Out net contribution (i.e. after rebates, CAP payments and one off grants) to the EU in 2014 was £7.1 billion, so we are actually paying almost £2 in cash for every £1 of tariff that we save. That makes no sense to anyone other than a politician.
Moreover, there is no such thing (for an exporter) as a single market. A product that sells is France is unlikely to sell in Germany without some modification– for a start the instruction manual will need to be in a different language. Moreover, the marketing and advertising will be completely different. Our largest single export partner is the United States, followed by Germany, Netherlands Switzerland and France. Exports to US are twice the size of exports to France.

In terms of growth (i.e. which export markets are likely to be larger in future) the Eurozone is stagnating at about 0.3%. The future lies in Asia, where growth rates are 5% plus. The EU is, increasingly, a backwater. Worse than that, the (self-inflicted) problems of the Euro mean that the EU’s future is far from certain. At least some of the commercial establishment wants to stay in. Why? Because EU regulation is a barrier to entry, and thus protects the current incumbents. That does not make it the right decision for the UK (nor actually the right long term decision for the current incumbents, but then famously the City doesn’t do long term). Why would any country, let alone the 5th largest economy in the world and the world’s financial centre want to pay to retain access to a market that has near zero growth and a currency time bomb?

We come now to migration. The simple, unadorned fact is that the UK has failed to get a grip of migration for years. Moreover, the debate has long been poisoned by halfwit politicians and commentators who can’t discern between nationalism and racism, let alone accept that the former is as essential to understanding what is going on as the latter is abhorrent. However, even if we did get a grip, we would not be able to regulate the flow from the EU, which is about half (although many suspect that this is an underestimate) or 160,000 per year. That is because the EU requires the free movement of labour. Restricting movement in any way requires us to leave.

So, is migration a good or a bad thing? Well, it depends. If a job needs filling and it can’t be filled by UK resident, using a migrant enables growth. Which is a good thing, but how good depends on what that migrant does with his or her pay. A UK national will spend and invest most of their pay inside the UK. That pay therefore gets recycled as further growth for the recipients of that spend. Economists call this the multiplier effect and it is a fundamental part of growth and it has exponential tendencies (the extra income for the food seller comes out as profit, which then gets reinvested etc). However, if that migrant choses to live packed into a room, spend as little as possible and send the rest of his money to his home country then the multiplier effect is much reduced. The overall effect is still good, but not as good as using a UK resident. If you then consider the additional burdens on infrastructure (housing, transport, water, education, health) some costs will accrue. Again, if the worker is spending some or all of his or her wealth in the UK it probably covers it. As money is repatriated then the tax take (through 20% VAT on sales) diminishes and the net gain becomes harder to measure.
Is uncontrolled migration a problem at the moment? It depends where you live and how much you earn. In some areas it certainly is. Is future migration potentially a problem? Well, the UK has a very high standard of living compared to those countries that have recently joined or are about to join the EU. That would imply that their people will come here seeking work. Now, Cameron’s reforms (note that these are actually future reforms because they do not yet exist in EU law and there is no guarantee that they will). And note that those reforms rather rely on the Border Service trying to find and deport unemployed EU migrants after they have been in UK for 6 months. It is a recipe for yet more failure. If you wish to control who lives in the UK then you need to vote out.

And don’t listen to the drivel that voting our means that we’ll be short of labour. Controlled immigration is not zero immigration. It works in US, Australia and in fact most of the rest of the world. Note also, as I showed above, that leaving the single market would actually save the UK money. So if the choice is between controlled immigration and single market membership, out is the way to go.

So that’s democracy, economic management and immigration. That really only leaves security and ex-pats. The latter is simple. No EU member state has said that it will take any action against any UK nationals resident in their country. Reason? Well firstly it would make no sense and secondly EU law would make it very, very difficult. It is a non-issue.

Moving on to security. Firstly, let’s just remember that the reason for peace in Europe (well, northern Europe at least) is NATO and nuclear weapons. And thinking about it, it took NATO (not the EU) to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia. To argue that our membership of the EU is important to NATO or our security is drivel. We were NATO members long before we joined the EEC and NATO was formed long before the fore-runners of the EEC. Moreover, the current EU military capability is risible. Any future one (and there is one) will be equally risible as it will not include the US. Some old Generals wrote a letter saying EU membership was important. At least one of the claimed signatories had not agreed it and another has recently changed his mind. There is simply no way in which the military security of the UK is in any way dependent upon the EU.

What about terrorism? As anyone who knows anything about the subject will tell you the key weapon in fighting terrorism is intelligence. The best intelligence in the world (they will also tell you) comes from the Five Eyes group (UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ). They do not share it. There is, of course, other information from other countries. The UK may well share information with France or Spain. Maybe Germany. But probably not Bulgaria or Romania. So any EU intelligence organisation is not getting the best stuff that the UK has. One of the problems of the free movement of people is that we have no mechanism to stop EU nationals whom we know are involved in terrorism if the information comes from non EU sources (which is likely). Some argue that if we leave EU we won’t get access to EU data. As I have shown, the EU data is not top quality and we have better stuff anyway. Moreover, as EU is likely to want stuff from us I do not believe that leaving EU will preclude intelligence sharing.

My final point is this. The debate has shown that the current political system in this country routinely knowingly publishes inaccurate data, seeks to inflame emotions rather than win arguments and stifles dissent rather than encouraging better. Given the current level of polls it is surely symptomatic of a failed system that all parties (bar one) have adopted a policy likely to be rejected by at least 45% of the electorate. How can they be so out of touch? How can the “professional” political reporting establishment have missed this so badly? How can a government publish such drivel as the £9 million leaflet, a Chancellor threaten vengeance taxes simply for voting out or a Prime Minister forecast war? It’s not good enough.

I expected better than this farce. I want, no, I demand improvement; you should too. The only way to get change is to exercise the sensible option. Vote for improvement. Vote to remove some of the buffoons in Westminster and all of the ones in Brussels. Vote because you love democracy and freedom.

Vote for whatever reason you like, but vote OUT.

Hero wrote:But what about the argument that it's our right to make our own laws rather than these crazy laws imposed on us by the EU! If we want excessive packaging we'll damn well have it!!!

Volcanicash wrote:Economics has never been my main reason for voting leave this Thursday, but these articles and also this video are some of the reasons not all(I have come across these only recently)  I think we would be ok, but I still fully expect a remain win so its all hypothetical…..  

Hero wrote:One bet I'd advise Duty to make after tonight's debate, Ruth Davidson to become PM within next 15 years.

Hero wrote:Nope the Express did run with that!

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Hero wrote:Nope the Express did run with that!

That is remarkable. Who on Earth actually reads that newspaper??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hero wrote:One bet I'd advise Duty to make after tonight's debate, Ruth Davidson to become PM within next 15 years.

I think she's been bloody brilliant. One of the few Tories left I like/respect.

Munchkin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Or if it's his opinion...

I'm not sure why he would say it if it were not at the very least the sentiment he wishes to express. That said he has, possibly, had some "help" with the wording of the press release.....

I actually think the bigger story is the misuse by the Leave.EU campaign (the same idiots who tried to use Orlando as part of their Project Fear strategy) over some old Victoria Beckham quotes. Were they so desperate to find someone to stick on posters that they had to rehash a quote from 20 years ago without even consulting the person being quoted to ascertain whether they still held those views, or to check its context!!?

Because I don't trust media whores. Why should I? New Labour was very fond of wheeling out celebs as rent-a-mouths and then we have the spectacle of Geldof chasing after Farage in a boat.

Beckhams little line seems scripted.

I'm not sure what New Labour has to do with any of this, but the point you make is exactly why I don't think his opinion merits a prominent place in the newscycle. Not necessary because it can't be trusted to be his view - I am confident the sentiment is his even if the exact words are not (after all, it's not like Remain have the money to tempt Beckham, as he'll make more interest from his net worth in one week than Remain has in its campaign warchest) - but because his opinion on such matters ought to carry no more weight than mine or yours.

If, on the other hand, he wished to question the selection policy of Roy Hodgson last night, then I'd be more inclined to read it.

Because New Labour made good use of this slimy tactic. It is relevant.

Why should you be confident that this is in fact his opinion? You said yourself that he may have had 'a little help' from the press. Why trust a pro Remain media to accurately portray his opinion? We have witnessed the media bias during the Scottish Referendum. This campaign is no different. That said, my point was more that someone from Remain HQ has contacted him and basically told him his opinion, even if he is pro Remain.

Because he said it and has stood by it. If he felt otherwise I'm confident we'd have heard about it.

As for the accusations of media bias, I think you need to be more specific. There are papers backing Remain and papers backing Leave. They have each made it clear who they are supporting, and the front covers and editorials back that up. If you mean the BBC, then I personally think they've done a pretty decent job in this referendum of staying on the fence, as they did in the Scottish referendum. Just look at the coverage today: they've led with the Steve Hilton story for most of the day, and now have reported a speech by the Prime Minister (sort of hard not to cover that if you're a media/news website). They've also published the story of Farage claiming that the PM and Osborne linked the Jo Cox murderer to the Leave campaign, as well as the DUP support for Brexit. That's just on the Beeb today. They also report the Soros piece, but included rebuttals from Gove and Lamont within the same article. I think they've done a useful job.

As for the slur on New Labour, please don't pretend that New Labour somehow invented spin. It's as old as the dawn of time, they just did it well. The media operation under David Cameron has been no different.

Fair enough if he has stood by it. I haven't seen any interview from him since the article was published.

There are papers backing Leave, however, the vast majority are backing Remain, just as the majority of MP's do. Leave are very much in the minority.

Duty281 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/21/exclusive-anjem-choudary-says-uk-worse-off-outside-eu-muslim-perspective/

The charming Anjem Choudary comes out in favour of Remain.

Shhhhhh, don't mention it!

Hero wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/21/exclusive-anjem-choudary-says-uk-worse-off-outside-eu-muslim-perspective/

The charming Anjem Choudary comes out in favour of Remain.

Shhhhhh, don't mention it!

Woohoo you've found one crackpot supporting Remain, shall we do a like for like with the Leave campaign and see who wins?

DAVE667 wrote:Blah Blah Blah...There's more important things in the world, namely, should I get my holiday euros now or after Thursday?

Hero wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/21/exclusive-anjem-choudary-says-uk-worse-off-outside-eu-muslim-perspective/

The charming Anjem Choudary comes out in favour of Remain.

Shhhhhh, don't mention it!

Woohoo you've found one crackpot supporting Remain, shall we do a like for like with the Leave campaign and see who wins?

Hero wrote:Michael Gove compares economic experts warning about Brexit to Nazis who smeared Einstein's scientific findings in the 1930s.

"We have to be careful about historical comparisons, but Albert Einstein during the 1930s was denounced by the German authorities for being wrong and his theories were denounced and one of the reasons of course he was denounced was because he was Jewish. They got 100 German scientists in the pay of the government to say he was wrong and Einstein said 'Look, if I was wrong, one would have been enough."

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Hero wrote:Michael Gove compares economic experts warning about Brexit to Nazis who smeared Einstein's scientific findings in the 1930s.

"We have to be careful about historical comparisons, but Albert Einstein during the 1930s was denounced by the German authorities for being wrong and his theories were denounced and one of the reasons of course he was denounced was because he was Jewish. They got 100 German scientists in the pay of the government to say he was wrong and Einstein said 'Look, if I was wrong, one would have been enough."

I heard that on the radio. I respect Gove, but he's lost the plot on that one.

Duty281 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060

A German industry boss has said it would be "very, very foolish" if the EU imposes trade barriers on the UK in the event it votes to leave the EU.

Markus Kerber, the head of the influential BDI which represents German industry, said his organisation would make the case against such measures.

Quite.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060

A German industry boss has said it would be "very, very foolish" if the EU imposes trade barriers on the UK in the event it votes to leave the EU.

Markus Kerber, the head of the influential BDI which represents German industry, said his organisation would make the case against such measures.

Quite.

Also -
"He said a vote to leave the EU would lead to a "serious disruption" to the German-UK economic relationship".

Is that good for the UK?