EU referendum

[Sour Mash]

Well who'd have thought. The man that accuses people of using made up figures for propoganda, using made up figures for propoganda,

 

Here's some more numbers from the CBI, not from a newspaper:

 

"A CBI literature review suggests that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK could be in the region of 4-5% of GDP or £62bn-£78bn a year – roughly the economies of the North East and Northern Ireland taken together."

 

So, while leaving the EU would mean our net contribution would be zero. We'd lose the benefit of circa £62bn a year - the CBI's number, not mine. Isn't that biting your nose off to spite your face?

 

No, they're not 'made up'. You do find all Thi properly confusing don't you.

[Batman]

Well who'd have thought. The man that accuses people of using made up figures for propoganda, using made up figures for propoganda,

 

Here's some more numbers from the CBI, not from a newspaper:

 

"A CBI literature review suggests that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK could be in the region of 4-5% of GDP or £62bn-£78bn a year – roughly the economies of the North East and Northern Ireland taken together."

So, while leaving the EU would mean our net contribution would be zero. We'd lose the benefit of circa £62bn a year - the CBI's number, not mine. Isn't that biting your nose off to spite your face?

why would we lose it, why cant we be better off?

why cant we tie up better deals with emerging economies? why cant we have better deals with Germany and france, for example?

[Wes Tender]

Well who'd have thought. The man that accuses people of using made up figures for propoganda, using made up figures for propoganda,

 

Here's some more numbers from the CBI, not from a newspaper:

 

"A CBI literature review suggests that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK could be in the region of 4-5% of GDP or £62bn-£78bn a year – roughly the economies of the North East and Northern Ireland taken together."

 

So, while leaving the EU would mean our net contribution would be zero. We'd lose the benefit of circa £62bn a year - the CBI's number, not mine. Isn't that biting your nose off to spite your face?

 

It's a bloody good thing that those figures from the CBI haven't been quoted after having been published in any newspapers, otherwise they would be suspect, eh?

 

And read what you have said and select some words that mean that those figures are not factual, but only a guess. The words "suggests" and "could be". In other words, you are essentially using made up figures yourself.

 

Naturally, there are two sides of a coin, the CBI suggested net benefit being one side. The other side of the coin which they have not had a stab at, is the increased trade that we will then do subsequently with the rest of the World.

[TwoPints]

No, they're not 'made up'. You do find all Thi properly confusing don't you.

Yes they are :

 

"According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - To put that in context, it is about 1.4% of total public spending - slightly less than the energy and climate change department's annual budget.

 

The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn."

 

Both figures are somewhat less than your made up £10bn figure. To put it into perspective, the highest figure here is about the same as the budget of the "Nuclear Decommissioning Authority". In the whole scheme of things, it's not a lot compared to the benefit.

[Sour Mash]

why would we lose it, why cant we be better off?

why cant we tie up better deals with emerging economies? why cant we have better deals with Germany and france, for example?

 

He's making stuff up as he doesn't understand the absolute basics of the subject.

[Sour Mash]

Yes they are :

 

"According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - To put that in context, it is about 1.4% of total public spending - slightly less than the energy and climate change department's annual budget.

 

The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn."

 

Both figures are somewhat less than your made up £10bn figure. To put it into perspective, the highest figure here is about the same as the budget of the "Nuclear Decommissioning Authority". In the whole scheme of things, it's not a lot compared to the benefit.

 

It's not my made up figure, try reading a bit, you won't look so stupid.

[Batman]

He's making stuff up as he doesn't understand the absolute basics of the subject.

 

I believe we could be far better off outside of the EU after the first couple of years.

 

we are, what is known as 'Treasure Island' to german car manufacturers and other huge european industries.

 

as said on QT, the moment the EU try to impose restrictions on such an astronomical market, the leaders of VW, Mercedes and BMW will be hounding Merkel (who basically controls the EU) to account..

 

it aint going to happen

[TwoPints]

The other side of the coin which they have not had a stab at, is the increased trade that we will then do subsequently with the rest of the World.

 

I'll assume you understand the difference between 'an estimate' and 'made up' numbers of the like that Sour likes to bandy about.

 

So, what is the answer, what is the estimated benefit of the super new trade deals we will put in place with the rest of the world if we leave the EU? Anyone know or would we just be taking a flyer on that if we choose to leave?

[Wes Tender]

Yes they are :

 

"According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - To put that in context, it is about 1.4% of total public spending - slightly less than the energy and climate change department's annual budget.

 

The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn."

 

Both figures are somewhat less than your made up £10bn figure. To put it into perspective, the highest figure here is about the same as the budget of the "Nuclear Decommissioning Authority". In the whole scheme of things, it's not a lot compared to the benefit.

 

What you must bear in mind, is that when we are talking about our net contribution, any monies returned to us in the form of regional grants, subsidies, and research funds, is actually our taxpayers' money that we have paid into the kitty. But I'm sure that you believe that the EU bureaucrats are far better equipped to judge on where that money is to go, rather than it being the choice of our democratically elected Government.

[buctootim]

That must be why Nissan and Honda said they wouldn't leave the UK if we voted out.

 

actually Carlos Ghosn was pretty damn clear.

[TwoPints]

He's making stuff up as he doesn't understand the absolute basics of the subject.

Lol if you actually had something constructive to add, people might be more inclined to listen to what you had to say.

[Wes Tender]

I'll assume you understand the difference between 'an estimate' and 'made up' numbers of the like that Sour likes to bandy about.

 

So, what is the answer, what is the estimated benefit of the super new trade deals we will put in place with the rest of the world if we leave the EU? Anyone know or would we just be taking a flyer on that if we choose to leave?

 

I'll also assume you know the difference between estimates and facts, although your quoting of the CBI figures as reliable suggests not. Regarding the potential value of increased trade with the rest of the World, I have already said earlier that nobody knows any more what that would amount to than they know factually what the loss of trade resulting from the EU if we left would be.

[TwoPints]

What you must bear in mind, is that when we are talking about our net contribution, any monies returned to us in the form of regional grants, subsidies, and research funds, is actually our taxpayers' money that we have paid into the kitty. But I'm sure that you believe that the EU bureaucrats are far better equipped to judge on where that money is to go, rather than it being the choice of our democratically elected Government.

So, we're having a referendum so the British people can decide whether they want to stay in or to leave. That seems like a rather democratic process to me. If we assume, just for a moment, that we remain in, presumably we'll all still have the opportunity to vote for our MEP. That too seems quite democratic to me.

[TwoPints]

I'll also assume you know the difference between estimates and facts, although your quoting of the CBI figures as reliable suggests not. Regarding the potential value of increased trade with the rest of the World, I have already said earlier that nobody knows any more what that would amount to than they know factually what the loss of trade resulting from the EU if we left would be.

Yes, I do understand that hence the reason I included the quote from the CBI that made it clear it was an estimate, rather than just stating an inaccurate number as being fact.

 

So, if we vote out, in the absence of an 'estimate' of the value of the trade deals we'd be able to arrange, we'd just be taking a bit of a flyer and hoping everything would be OK? I wonder why people aren't so keen to sign up to that!

 

Anyway, I have somewhere to go this afternoon ? so I have to go now.

[buctootim]

It's funny to watch the outies confusion. normally the CBI, FTSE100 CEOS, IOD, SMMT are touchstones on the economy - Gods whose opinion can't be challenged. now suddenly it's all just irrelevant.

[Nolan]

There are no positive reasons to stay in the EU. That's why the inners are campaigning so vitriolically.

 

I work in the fruit trade. Coming out of the EU wouldn't make a difference in the slightest. With Russia banning all imports of produce from Europe they simply couldn't cope with a further reduction in trade for citrus / top fruit / berries / salad.

 

It's time we made the cut and started running ourselves once more.

 

The British standard Kate mark preceded the CE one. Our blue flag beach system predates the EU one. We spend three times more on the common agricultural policy than our farmers Receive. The Chancellor want even allowed to reduce VAT on sanitary towels because the EU classes them as a luxury item and All luxury items must have a Sales tax.

 

We are so better off out, it's ludicrous any one thinks otherwise.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

Ah, so you didn't want those particular stats on why we should leave

 

How about this one; £0 = our net contribution to the EU when we leave.

 

Silly boy.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes, all of those countries who vote for each other in the Eurovision Song contest.

 

Another European institution badly in need of reform

 

Eurovision is nothing to do with Europe.

 

There... I bet that surprised you!

[Whitey Grandad]

It's a bloody good thing that those figures from the CBI haven't been quoted after having been published in any newspapers, otherwise they would be suspect, eh?

 

And read what you have said and select some words that mean that those figures are not factual, but only a guess. The words "suggests" and "could be". In other words, you are essentially using made up figures yourself.

 

Naturally, there are two sides of a coin, the CBI suggested net benefit being one side. The other side of the coin which they have not had a stab at, is the increased trade that we will then do subsequently with the rest of the World.

 

This bit about 'the rest of the world' makes me hold my head in my hands. It cost a hell of a lot more to sell to the rest of the world than it does to sell to your neighbours. That's if they want to buy from us.

 

Are you for real?

[buctootim]

This bit about 'the rest of the world' makes me hold my head in my hands. It cost a hell of a lot more to sell to the rest of the world than it does to sell to your neighbours. That's if they want to buy from us.

 

Are you for real?

 

It seems Wes believes the EU have banned us from trading with the rest of the world, but once we leave there will be previously untapped horde of countries wanting our stuff. We shoot uldnt upset him by pointing out it will actually be harder not easier.

[solentstars]

It seems Wes believes the EU have banned us from trading with the rest of the world, but once we leave there will be previously untapped horde of countries wanting our stuff. We shoot uldnt upset him by pointing out it will actually be harder not easier.

agree it does not the germans winning big markets in asia and if we can,t do it in one of the worlds biggest markets now,how the hell would we when we became a smaller player..reading some of the out posters views are not based on reality orfact and just what they believe would happen in there fantasy world,i prefer to deal with reality and the real world how it is,if they showed me a real out plan,i might look at it.i,m not prepared to gamble on a wim and like us being a big player around the world.

[solentstars]

This bit about 'the rest of the world' makes me hold my head in my hands. It cost a hell of a lot more to sell to the rest of the world than it does to sell to your neighbours. That's if they want to buy from us.

 

Are you for real?

i don,t think they understand how business works.

[Wes Tender]

It seems Wes believes the EU have banned us from trading with the rest of the world, but once we leave there will be previously untapped horde of countries wanting our stuff. We shoot uldnt upset him by pointing out it will actually be harder not easier.

 

It seems that your comprehension of the English language is lacking, but your ability to twist things is in fine fettle.

[Sour Mash]

Silly boy.

 

Apologies for providing the stats you asked for that happen to run counter to your argument.

[TwoPints]

Well this made me chuckle but wait for the vitriol from the Leavers:

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/gruffalo-gruffalo-gruffalo?utm_term=.vsxRQ8KBJN

[TwoPints]

Apologies for providing the stats you asked for that happen to run counter to your argument.

Wow! You really do struggle with the basics don't you!

 

"£0 = our net contribution to the EU when we leave." is not a statistic.

[Wes Tender]

Wow! You really do struggle with the basics don't you!

 

"£0 = our net contribution to the EU when we leave." is not a statistic.

 

Don't be simple. Of course £0 is a statistic. How many goals did Forster concede in 6 matches. None. That is a statistic

[TwoPints]

Don't be simple. Of course £0 is a statistic. How many goals did Forster concede in 6 matches. None. That is a statistic

Blimey... Another one. Your latter example is indeed a statistic. The first one isn't, it's simply a number. Have a look at the definition of a statistic... actually, I'll save you the trouble:

 

"A*statistic*(singular) is a single measure of some attribute of a*sample*"

 

So, in your latter example, the sample is 6 matches, the number of goals conceded is the attribute. In the first one, there is no sample and therefore, no attribute of a sample, it's simply a number. You're welcome.

[TwoPints]

As the Leavers are keen on press articles, here's one for you that I found in the Guardian:

 

"The economic challenges of Brexit would be overwhelming. The Out campaign’s main economic argument – that Britain’s huge trade deficit is a secret weapon, because the EU would have more to lose than Britain from a breakdown in trade relations – is flatly wrong. Britain would need to negotiate access to the European single market for its service industries, whereas EU manufacturers would automatically enjoy virtually unlimited rights to sell whatever they wanted in Britain under global World Trade Organization rules.

 

Margaret Thatcher was the first to realise that Britain’s specialisation in services – not only finance, but also law, accountancy, media, architecture, pharmaceutical research and so on – makes membership in the EU single market critical. It makes little economic difference to Germany, France, or Italy whether Britain is an EU member or simply in the WTO.

 

Britain would therefore need an EU association agreement, similar to those negotiated with Switzerland or Norway, the only two significant European economies outside the EU. From the EU’s perspective, the terms of any British deal would have to be at least as stringent as those in the existing association agreements. To grant easier terms would immediately force matching concessions to Switzerland and Norway. Worse still, any special favors for Britain would set a precedent and tempt other lukewarm EU members to make exit threats and demand renegotiation.

 

Among the conditions accepted by Norway and Switzerland that the EU would surely regard as non-negotiable are four that completely negate the political objectives of Brexit. Norway and Switzerland must abide by all EU single market standards and regulations, without any say in their formulation. They agree to translate all relevant EU laws into their domestic legislation without consulting domestic voters. They contribute substantially to the EU budget. And they must accept unlimited EU immigration, resulting in a higher share of EU immigrants in the Swiss and Norwegian populations than in the UK.

 

If Britain rejected these encroachments on national sovereignty, its service industries would be locked out of the single market. The French, German, and Irish governments would be particularly delighted to see UK-based banks and hedge funds shackled by EU regulations, and UK-based businesses involved in asset management, insurance, accountancy, law, and media forced to transfer their jobs, head offices, and tax payments to Paris, Frankfurt, or Dublin.

 

When confronted with this exodus of high-value service jobs and businesses, Britain would surely balk and accept the intrusive regulations entailed by Swiss and Norwegian-style EU association agreements. Ultimately, Brexit would not only force a disruptive renegotiation of economic relations; it would also lead to a loss of political sovereignty for Britain.

 

Or maybe just for England, given that Scotland would probably leave the UK and rejoin the EU, taking many of London’s service jobs to Edinburgh in the process. Once Britain’s political, business, and media leaders start drawing attention to these hard facts of life after Brexit, we can be confident that voters will decide to stay in the EU."

[Wes Tender]

As the Leavers are keen on press articles, here's one for you that I found in the Guardian:

 

"The economic challenges of Brexit would be overwhelming. The Out campaign’s main economic argument – that Britain’s huge trade deficit is a secret weapon, because the EU would have more to lose than Britain from a breakdown in trade relations – is flatly wrong. Britain would need to negotiate access to the European single market for its service industries, whereas EU manufacturers would automatically enjoy virtually unlimited rights to sell whatever they wanted in Britain under global World Trade Organization rules.

 

Margaret Thatcher was the first to realise that Britain’s specialisation in services – not only finance, but also law, accountancy, media, architecture, pharmaceutical research and so on – makes membership in the EU single market critical. It makes little economic difference to Germany, France, or Italy whether Britain is an EU member or simply in the WTO.

 

Britain would therefore need an EU association agreement, similar to those negotiated with Switzerland or Norway, the only two significant European economies outside the EU. From the EU’s perspective, the terms of any British deal would have to be at least as stringent as those in the existing association agreements. To grant easier terms would immediately force matching concessions to Switzerland and Norway. Worse still, any special favors for Britain would set a precedent and tempt other lukewarm EU members to make exit threats and demand renegotiation.

 

Among the conditions accepted by Norway and Switzerland that the EU would surely regard as non-negotiable are four that completely negate the political objectives of Brexit. Norway and Switzerland must abide by all EU single market standards and regulations, without any say in their formulation. They agree to translate all relevant EU laws into their domestic legislation without consulting domestic voters. They contribute substantially to the EU budget. And they must accept unlimited EU immigration, resulting in a higher share of EU immigrants in the Swiss and Norwegian populations than in the UK.

 

If Britain rejected these encroachments on national sovereignty, its service industries would be locked out of the single market. The French, German, and Irish governments would be particularly delighted to see UK-based banks and hedge funds shackled by EU regulations, and UK-based businesses involved in asset management, insurance, accountancy, law, and media forced to transfer their jobs, head offices, and tax payments to Paris, Frankfurt, or Dublin.

 

When confronted with this exodus of high-value service jobs and businesses, Britain would surely balk and accept the intrusive regulations entailed by Swiss and Norwegian-style EU association agreements. Ultimately, Brexit would not only force a disruptive renegotiation of economic relations; it would also lead to a loss of political sovereignty for Britain.

 

Or maybe just for England, given that Scotland would probably leave the UK and rejoin the EU, taking many of London’s service jobs to Edinburgh in the process. Once Britain’s political, business, and media leaders start drawing attention to these hard facts of life after Brexit, we can be confident that voters will decide to stay in the EU."

So you provide your article from the pro-remain Guardian and here is one from the pro-leave Telegraph.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12148307/Britain-can-enjoy-the-good-life-after-Brexit.html

 

That points out that Britain would also be able to continue its trade with the EU members under the WTO rules, but believes that we can do better than that. The fear campaign continues to make comparisons between our position in the EU regarding trade and that of the much smaller Norway and Switzerland. It really is becoming boring.

[Verbal]

So you provide your article from the pro-remain Guardian and here is one from the pro-leave Telegraph.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12148307/Britain-can-enjoy-the-good-life-after-Brexit.html

 

That points out that Britain would also be able to continue its trade with the EU members under the WTO rules, but believes that we can do better than that. The fear campaign continues to make comparisons between our position in the EU regarding trade and that of the much smaller Norway and Switzerland. It really is becoming boring.

 

Would that be the same 'pro-leave' newspaper as this one, running as its lead story this evening that a Brexit would cause a global economic shock?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12175865/Global-economy-will-suffer-a-shock-if-Britain-leaves-EU-G20-warns.html

 

The problem with you Brexiters is that you fall into two camps, both of them amounting to nothing more than an internal Tory party dispute. There are the Brexiters like Cash who've always wanted out and occupy the political fringes with Farage, Galloway, Icke, etc (your natural habitat, based on what you've left behind on here). And then there are the pretend Brexiters like Johnson and Gove who think Cameron's deal can be bettered by a bit of Russian roulette with the British economy, but will ultimately want to rejoin on supposedly better terms. Johnson's cynicism is the added ingredient - a leadership bid that defies his own stay-in beliefs and his own London constituents' overwhelming support for staying in.

 

So what we have in reality is a party on the brink of tearing itself apart - again - over Europe, overlaid by a cynical bid for party leadership. The British electorate is being used to sort out the internal mess for them.

 

If only we had a credible Opposition it would clean up after these idiots.

[Wes Tender]

Would that be the same 'pro-leave' newspaper as this one, running as its lead story this evening that a Brexit would cause a global economic shock?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12175865/Global-economy-will-suffer-a-shock-if-Britain-leaves-EU-G20-warns.html

 

The problem with you Brexiters is that you fall into two camps, both of them amounting to nothing more than an internal Tory party dispute. There are the Brexiters like Cash who've always wanted out and occupy the political fringes with Farage, Galloway, Icke, etc (your natural habitat, based on what you've left behind on here). And then there are the pretend Brexiters like Johnson and Gove who think Cameron's deal can be bettered by a bit of Russian roulette with the British economy, but will ultimately want to rejoin on supposedly better terms. Johnson's cynicism is the added ingredient - a leadership bid that defies his own stay-in beliefs and his own London constituents' overwhelming support for staying in.

 

So what we have in reality is a party on the brink of tearing itself apart - again - over Europe, overlaid by a cynical bid for party leadership. The British electorate is being used to sort out the internal mess for them.

 

If only we had a credible Opposition it would clean up after these idiots.

 

You don't seem to be able to recognise the difference between the reporting of a news item (the G20 warning) and an opinion item which will have editorial approval because it reflects the paper's position.

 

As has been said by Farage, this is the old boys network doing a bit of mutual back-scratching. Nigel Lawson also disputed the allegations that our Brexit would endanger International stability.

 

And then you're wrong about my natural habitat too. I voted to remain in the Common Market at the time of the Harold Wilson referendum, even campaigned for it. My disillusionment with it started at the time of the Maastricht Treaty when it morphed towards a Federal Europe becoming the EU. My position now is that I would happily stay if the reforms we obtained were control over our borders, regaining our lost sovereignty and the restoration of the supremacy of our own judicial system. I believe that there would be a clear majority of the electorate who also support that stance. But as Cameron only managed a fudge in his negotiations on reform, and we are told that leaving cannot be the prelude to renegotiating a return to the fold with improved reforms, then the EU leave us no choice but to take the nuclear option if the electorate voted to leave.

 

I don't agree with your conclusion that it is the Tory Party tearing itself apart again. They are holding to an election pledge by Cameron which was forced on them by UKIP's rise as a political force. You don't seem to see that there are also Labour MPs in the Brexit camp, but for some reason you don't see them as tearing the party apart. The British electorate are not being used to sort out anything apart from their democratic rights to have a say on the successive Treaty changes brought about by successive governments who have signed away our sovereignty, border controls and the supremacy of our judicial system

 

Do you not believe that they have a demographic right to decide on these things?

[Johnny Bognor]

Are the same people who want us to stay, the same people that told us that being in the euro was a good idea??

[shurlock]

Are the same people who want us to stay, the same people that told us that being in the euro was a good idea??

 

Nope, Johnny Bogusnonsequitur.

Edited 28 February, 2016 by shurlock

[Nolan]

Are the same people who want us to stay, the same people that told us that being in the euro was a good idea??

Yes, they are the same people who get backhanders from dodgy EU institutions.

 

Just as the majority of the Tories supporting the EU in campaign have government jobs in to of their MP duties.

 

It's all about the money.

 

Still yet to see a positive reason for staying in in the current status quo.

 

I was all up for signing up to a reformed Europe, shame no reformation is forthcoming.

 

Better off out.

[OldNick]

Apparently if we vote to leave the treaty we signed up for means that the EU countries decide on the terms we leave on. That would of course be punitive. This is according to an article in the Economist.Britain and the EU-The Brexit delusion

[Whitey Grandad]

Apologies for providing the stats you asked for that happen to run counter to your argument.

 

You are far too simplistic. Do you really believe that if we left the EU we would be £10bn better off? Leaving aside the probability that we would still need to pay an access fee that sum would be overshadowed by the loss in revenue from a weaker economy. Then there is the issue of our credit rating and the interest rate that we would have to pay on our borrowings which we get mainly from the... er... EU.

 

Immigration will not fall to zero either.

 

Your initial response was to the issue that there are no statistics nor projections relating to the OUT campaign and this remains the case.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Are the same people who want us to stay, the same people that told us that being in the euro was a good idea??

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/120407.stm

 

The CBI, who the Remainians seem to love .

"The euro will create a single market of transparent prices, reduced exchange rate risk and a pan-European capital market. Each of these will give a stimulus to competition and productivity growth across Europe."

 

How's the growth going ?

[revolution saint]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/120407.stm

 

The CBI, who the Remainians seem to love .

"The euro will create a single market of transparent prices, reduced exchange rate risk and a pan-European capital market. Each of these will give a stimulus to competition and productivity growth across Europe."

 

How's the growth going ?

 

Don't suppose you could stop calling people who want stay in the EU as Remainians? Wasn't really funny the first time and, well, it's a bit school playground isn't it? Detracts from your argument if anything. Ta.

[buctootim]

 

How's the growth going ?

 

 

Pretty good, thanks for asking. The UK is well behind Germany, OECD average and most other northern European and commonwealth economies - we've only just managed to achieve the same GDP per capita we had in 2007. Obviously the eurozone average is dragged down by Greece and Spain but is still higher than the UK since 2005 - or were you thinking the UK economy was comparable to Greece?

 

 

 

Edited 28 February, 2016 by buctootim

[shurlock]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/120407.stm

 

The CBI, who the Remainians seem to love .

"The euro will create a single market of transparent prices, reduced exchange rate risk and a pan-European capital market. Each of these will give a stimulus to competition and productivity growth across Europe."

 

How's the growth going ?

 

Look at Martin Wolf of the FT, one of the world's leading economic commentators -vehemently opposed to joining the Euro; but completely in favour of staying in the EU.

 

Or even your very own sweaty pinup, Ed Balls.

 

Not to mention lesser known figures like John Major - he might have negotiated an opt out from the single currency during the Maastricht treaty negotiations or something trivial like that.

 

Who'd have thought it's perfectly possible to hold two logically and mutually exclusive beliefs. The sheer, brazen audacity of it.

Edited 28 February, 2016 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Don't suppose you could stop calling people who want stay in the EU as Remainians? Wasn't really funny the first time and, well, it's a bit school playground isn't it? Detracts from your argument if anything. Ta.

 

I'm looking forward to your castigation of the posters who call the "leave" brigade swivel-eyed loons or similar. As you say, it is a bit playground and detracts from their arguments, doesn't it? You didn't haul them up over it at the time, but a retrospective rebuke will be fine.

[revolution saint]

I'm looking forward to your castigation of the posters who call the "leave" brigade swivel-eyed loons or similar. As you say, it is a bit playground and detracts from their arguments, doesn't it? You didn't haul them up over it at the time, but a retrospective rebuke will be fine.

 

No, I'd completely agree with you. Why would you think otherwise? Funny thing is I've never actually expressed an opinion as to whether I think staying or leaving is a good idea so my vote is effectively up for grabs.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Look at Martin Wolf of the FT, one of the world's leading economic commentators -vehemently opposed to joining the Euro; but completely in favour of staying in the EU.

 

Or even your very own sweaty pinup, Ed Balls.

 

Not to mention lesser known figures like John Major - he might have negotiated an opt out from the single currency during the Maastricht treaty negotiations or something trivial like that.

 

Who'd have thought it's perfectly possible to hold two logically and mutually exclusive beliefs. The sheer, brazen audacity of it.

 

I was responding to the posters holding great stall with the CBI wanting to remain . They were predicting the same meltdown they are now . They were wrong then and they're wrong now .

 

I think you'll find Ed Balls' position was not against ever joining the Euro or a against it in principle , it was just that our economy wasn't ready yet . There's a lot of rewriting of history on this by Labour . Their policy was "not now" it was not " never" .

[buctootim]

There's a lot of rewriting of history on this by Labour . Their policy was "not now" it was not " never" .

 

Why would a Government or any political party rule something out for ever?

 

"When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?" Keynes. He'd obviously never heard of UKIP.

[ringwood]

If it was the Common Market , yes I'm old enough to remember its original advertising , then all the trade arguments would be sound, but its the only true unknown and I don't trust any of the economists or bankers the blurring is the 'trade' agreements however as its perceived that the UK is one of the few to abide by the 'rules'

 

I work for a 'European' based manufacturer who sell worldwide, a big chunk to the automotive industry, but whether were in or out of Europe wont affect our sales to the English speaking markets

 

Trouble is it goes beyond trade, its immigration, laws and thats not the original Common Market and by leaving the control would again be in the UK for anything on our shores and that's a predictable outcome

 

Simple View -

Common Market = Good

Single European Government = Bad

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why would a Government or any political party rule something out for ever?

 

"When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?" Keynes. He'd obviously never heard of UKIP.

 

Monetary union without fiscal Union can never work , that fact will never change .

[shurlock]

I was responding to the posters holding great stall with the CBI wanting to remain . They were predicting the same meltdown they are now . They were wrong then and they're wrong now .

 

I think you'll find Ed Balls' position was not against ever joining the Euro or a against it in principle , it was just that our economy wasn't ready yet . There's a lot of rewriting of history on this by Labour . Their policy was "not now" it was not " never" .

 

My understanding from people directly involved is that Balls was against the Euro in principle - the whole Five Tests business was just a convenient way to give this visceral opposition the patina of technocratic credibility and rationality.

[Johnny Bognor]

Nope, Johnny Bogusnonsequitur.

 

just pouring scorn on these so called 'expert' views. i am on the fence as it happens. good arguments to stay on some issues like economics, good reasons to leave on other issues.

[Lord Duckhunter]

My understanding from people directly involved is that Balls was against the Euro in principle - the whole Five Tests business was just a convenient way to give this visceral opposition the patina of technocratic credibility and rationality.

 

Of course , they were all against it , but didn't actually say so . It was wrong , not only for Britain , but for France , for Greece , Portugal, Spain , in fact wrong full stop . I don't recall one labour politician or Leave politician ever saying so .