EU referendum

[LuckyNumber7]

I do so enjoy the irony of leavers arguing that we would be able to negotiate a good trade deal with the EU if we leave, wakey, wakey we already have one, we wont get anything as good if we leave.

 

Perhaps, and if the EU was just about a trade deal then I don't think many people would have a problem with it, but it's not is it.

 

The basic facts are that for as long as we are a member of the EU, there are many aspects of our own policy making and laws that we simply have no control over, and that is unacceptable to a lot of people.

[hutch]

Isn't our free access to the European market costing us about three hundred million quid a week?

[moonraker]

Isn't our free access to the European market costing us about three hundred million quid a week?

 

In short no, another Brexit myth.

[Batman]

In short no, another Brexit myth.

 

it is about £152m

[moonraker]

Whereas of course, Osborne is a paragon of veracity when it comes to putting out figures for the remain camp, isn't he? No way that his spin on the cost to every family could be torn apart by a media presenter, is there?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/watch-ed-vaizey-grilled-by-andrew-neil-over-george-osbornes-dodgy-eu-dossier/

 

The LSE did a slightly more balanced assessment of Georgie's figures. A right wing publication is hardly neutral.

[moonraker]

it is about £152m

 

That is the net figure. What we need to know is how much we would have to pay for a deal when not in the EU plus the cost of all the other individual deals, they won't be free. Assuming we could get some savings we may be better off on this one simple basis but no where near the amount Brexit keeps claiming something if the order of £50m a week might be achievable. Or less than one pound per person per week, what will you spend you 85 p on?

[Wes Tender]

The LSE did a slightly more balanced assessment of Georgie's figures. A right wing publication is hardly neutral.

 

What are you going on about? The grilling of Osborne's spin, was conducted by Andrew Neil as a BBC journalist. Next you'll be telling us the BBC is biased too.

[moonraker]

What are you going on about? The grilling of Osborne's spin, was conducted by Andrew Neil as a BBC journalist. Next you'll be telling us the BBC is biased too.

 

You provided a link to The Spectator blog, I agree the treasury analysis was very poorly presented and flawed, however the core message has merit.

[Whitey Grandad]

That is the net figure. What we need to know is how much we would have to pay for a deal when not in the EU plus the cost of all the other individual deals, they won't be free. Assuming we could get some savings we may be better off on this one simple basis but no where near the amount Brexit keeps claiming something if the order of £50m a week might be achievable. Or less than one pound per person per week, what will you spend you 85 p on?

 

There is also the cost/benefit aspect of it. If this amount brings in higher domestic product then it more than offsets its cost.

[Hockey_saint]

The LSE did a slightly more balanced assessment of Georgie's figures. A right wing publication is hardly neutral.

 

He's kinda got form for bringing up "neutral" evidence that's highly biased.

[Kingsland Codger]

That is the net figure. What we need to know is how much we would have to pay for a deal when not in the EU plus the cost of all the other individual deals, they won't be free. Assuming we could get some savings we may be better off on this one simple basis but no where near the amount Brexit keeps claiming something if the order of £50m a week might be achievable. Or less than one pound per person per week, what will you spend you 85 p on?

 

I am also puzzled by the way Brexiteers assume the funds that will no longer be sent to Brussels every week (£350m or £152m or something else) will then be available for politicians of whatever hue to spend on whatever project they fancy.

 

Here's a novel idea; give it back to the people from whom it came. Will this be in the form of a cut in the tax rate or an increase in the threshold?

[Sour Mash]

I am also puzzled by the way Brexiteers assume the funds that will no longer be sent to Brussels every week (£350m or £152m or something else) will then be available for politicians of whatever hue to spend on whatever project they fancy.

 

Here's a novel idea; give it back to the people from whom it came. Will this be in the form of a cut in the tax rate or an increase in the threshold?

Good point, even more of a reason to vote for Brexit (although no harm with it being spent on schools or hospitals).

[Hockey_saint]

Good point, even more of a reason to vote for Brexit (although no harm with it being spent on schools or hospitals).

 

Nah, it'll be trousered by your favourite Tory Brexiteers.

[Batman]

The OECD have stated that a Brexit would cut immigration by at least 84k every 12 months

[Sour Mash]

Nah, it'll be trousered by your favourite Tory Brexiteers.

 

Really, who are they? I'm not as up to speed on Tory matters as you.

[Hockey_saint]

Really, who are they? I'm not as up to speed on Tory matters as you.

 

You two Brexiteers don't seem to be up on much concerning the Conservative party considering A. Batman up there is very quick to write nonsense about the Labour leader yet seems to be very vague on the party he clearly supports and B. This whole referendum idea has been pushed for and is essentially a Conservative party project.

[Sour Mash]

You two Brexiteers don't seem to be up on much concerning the Conservative party considering A. Batman up there is very quick to write nonsense about the Labour leader yet seems to be very vague on the party he clearly supports and B. This whole referendum idea has been pushed for and is essentially a Conservative party project.

 

Yes, but you seem to know who this money is going to, so why don't you tell us?

[Wes Tender]

You provided a link to The Spectator blog, I agree the treasury analysis was very poorly presented and flawed, however the core message has merit.

 

Just because the Spectator blog featured the video clip of the Andrew Neil interview clinically dissecting the unsubstantiated propaganda claptrap put out by Osborne, does not make the actual interview itself biased, does it? Had the Osborne propaganda appeared in the Beano, would you say that it was childish and infantile?

 

The core message has not had any favours done for it by the sort of massaged statistics dressed up as fact that have been produced by the likes of Osborne in order to frighten the more gullible voters who put store in them just because he is the Chancellor.

[Wes Tender]

For all those remainers who constantly bleat on about how there is not one single respected economist able to state the financial consequences of a Brexit, that will now be changing.

 

https://www.facebook.com/Economists-for-Brexit-540769736095092/

 

I have continuously taken the stance that it will be difficult to predict the consequences either way, but when the remain brigade are happy to accept the dire forecasts of the likes of Osborne as being the gospel truth, it will be interesting to listen to their reactions to forecasts that we might well be better off out of this corrupt organisation which is long past its sell-by date.

[CB Fry]

For all those remainers who constantly bleat on about how there is not one single respected economist able to state the financial consequences of a Brexit, that will now be changing.

 

https://www.facebook.com/Economists-for-Brexit-540769736095092/

 

I have continuously taken the stance that it will be difficult to predict the consequences either way, but when the remain brigade are happy to accept the dire forecasts of the likes of Osborne as being the gospel truth, it will be interesting to listen to their reactions to forecasts that we might well be better off out of this corrupt organisation which is long past its sell-by date.

 

It's not about people "bleating" that "there isn't one economist". Obviously there will be some economists supporting Leave. Obviously.

 

The question Kate Hoey couldn't answer last week was about Independent economic reports/analysis from an independent group/source showing a positive forecast post-Leave.

 

A Facebook group called, er, "Economists for Brexit" is not going to answer that, I'm afraid.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Further to this assertion of yours:-

 

http://www.cityam.com/239663/brexit-myths-debunked-the-leave-campaign-shouldnt-fear-arguing-that-leaving-the-eu-would-be-good-for-the-economy

 

Interesting link. You do understand I take it that the assumptions of this “Economists for Brexit" group (that title gives you a clue as to their level of academic objectivity) are not a proper study or forecast, but rather just their induvidual opinions? Furthermore, if you read the article carefully then you will soon see that their assumptions are entirly CONTINGENT upon a set of circumstances being achived post 'Brexit' that they can neither meaningfully predict, let alone guarantee, at this time.

 

But if you choose to depict the CONTINGENT, and indeed unspecified, opinions of a few induvidual economists (note that even the author of this article conceeds that they don't all agree!) coupled with the dubious conclusions of Boris Johnson's (utterly impartial of course) "economic team" as some kind of meaningful forecast from reputable bodies ... well then good for you I suppose. However, I doubt somehow that the London Mayor's hiterto unknown "economic team" has as yet established a stella reputation for itself in the field of international economics that rivals the competence of the OECD, HM Treasury or the Governer of the Bank of England. You will no doubt think differently, but in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davis "well you would wouldn't you".

 

So again, whether you find this truth to be uncomforable or not, the fact of the matter is that EVERY serious economic forcast we have seen to date has concluded that this nation risks its future prosperity should we vote to leave the EU. On that question of risk, I'm entirly 'non fussed' that you should seek to gamble away your future in exchange for the 'pocket full of promises' on offer from the likes of Nigel Farage, Michael Grove and that charlatan Boris Johnson. However, I'm rather less sanguine that dyed-in-the-wool kippers such as yourself should so glibly endanger the prospects of future generations who now rely on us to show at least some minimal concern in regard of their welfare.

[Nolan]

Again... The worst case scenarios that have been produced by the oecd and the treasury still show us growing at a faster rate than the euro zone over their studied period.

 

A miniscule hit on GDP is certainly acceptable with the sovereignty benefits we would get back.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Again... The worst case scenarios that have been produced by the oecd and the treasury still show us growing at a faster rate than the euro zone over their studied period.

 

A miniscule hit on GDP is certainly acceptable with the sovereignty benefits we would get back.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Again, all reputable research shows that our economy risks becoming a poorer one should we vote to leave the EU and its huge Single Market area. The relative economic performance of other European economys vis a vis the UK is irrelevant to this central point as we are discusing the prospects for OUR economy here.

 

As for your "miniscule" reductions in our future GDP being somehow insignificant - I can only conclude that attitude betrays a fundamental level of economic illiteracy as relativly small reductions in annual GDP - even as little 0.2% to 0.5% perhaps - would in fact ammout to a very large sum of money in a economy of our size.

 

.

Edited 28 April, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Nolan]

Again the worse case scenario shows £5000 GDP per capita less growth in 2030 based on today's population numbers, not even on a predicted population level in 2030.

 

They say our gdppc will rise to any where between £46k or £41k from £30k today.

 

Either is good compared to predictions for the majority of the world.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I wonder wether the "worse case senario" factors in the negative impact that any significant restrictions on future immigration (surely a key motivation behind the Bretex cause) would have on the vital 'supply side" of our economy?

 

As for the "per capita" number being quoted being (at worst) some £5,000 - you do understand I hope that "per capita" includes children and old age pensioners in the population as well as working age adults etc. Therefore, elementary arithmetic tells you that a £5k reduction per capita would ammount to a loss of some £20k every single year for a typical family of four. I suppose you may see a trifling £20,000 as a price well worth paying to rid ourselves of the EU. In my circumstances £20k seems like a decent pile of cash ... so I vote no then.

[Nolan]

I'm guessing if they could have thought it would have been any worse due to any factors that they could have possibly thought of, they would have published it.

 

 

And do you realise that GDP per capita is widely different from take home after tax.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm guessing if they could have thought it would have been any worse due to any factors that they could have possibly thought of, they would have published it.

 

 

And do you realise that GDP per capita is widely different from take home after tax.

 

Well why don't you post a link as to where you are getting these numbers from so that we can all see for ourselves?

[Nolan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So this study specificaly EXCLUDES then any impact that reductions in future immigration would have on our economy.

[Nolan]

So this study specificaly EXCLUDES then any impact that reductions in future immigration would have on our economy.

I know a crazy exclusion, especially as more population would decrease those numbers.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I know a crazy exclusion, especially as more population would decrease those numbers.

 

We can safely conlude I think that artificialy restricting the supply of ready labour would have the effect of decreasing growth overall in our economy. If we seek to secure a more prosperous future for ourselves then restricting growth would be a bad thing would it not?

Edited 28 April, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Nolan]

Seeing as we will be able to bring in the best of people from all over the world rather then any EU citizen who wants to come we'll be fine.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Non EU immigration into the UK is a primarily matter for our Parliment to regulate. As for so called "low skilled" EU immigrants not being a very useful addition to our economy, I see no actual evidence provided to support any such contention.

[Sour Mash]

Seeing as we will be able to bring in the best of people from all over the world rather then any EU citizen who wants to come we'll be fine.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Agreed, do the same as any sensible country and actually control immigration, its not a new or novel idea. But you're arguing with people who want complete open-borders unlimited immigration, so good luck explaining a sensible idea to them.

[Wes Tender]

Interesting link. You do understand I take it that the assumptions of this “Economists for Brexit" group (that title gives you a clue as to their level of academic objectivity) are not a proper study or forecast, but rather just their induvidual opinions? Furthermore, if you read the article carefully then you will soon see that their assumptions are entirly CONTINGENT upon a set of circumstances being achived post 'Brexit' that they can neither meaningfully predict, let alone guarantee, at this time.

The name of this group gives away the position they espouse? Quel surprise! A bit like the business leaders of those organisations who signed their letter stating what a disaster it would be if we left. I don't recall you rubbishing that as people with an agenda.

 

But if you choose to depict the CONTINGENT, and indeed unspecified, opinions of a few induvidual economists (note that even the author of this article conceeds that they don't all agree!) coupled with the dubious conclusions of Boris Johnson's (utterly impartial of course) "economic team" as some kind of meaningful forecast from reputable bodies ... well then good for you I suppose. However, I doubt somehow that the London Mayor's hiterto unknown "economic team" has as yet established a stella reputation for itself in the field of international economics that rivals the competence of the OECD, HM Treasury or the Governer of the Bank of England. You will no doubt think differently, but in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davis "well you would wouldn't you".

 

Stella reputation? Is that connected with Paul Mc Cartney in any way? Regarding the HM Treasury, please look a few posts up to see how their forecasts can so easily be challenged. As for governors of the Bank of England, I would suggest that Mervin King is probably rated higher respect-wise than Carney, but you will happily ignore his opinions as not suiting your agenda. In any event, is he not an individual economist too? Speaking of individual economists, presumably if this group comprised the likes of Friedman or Keynes, would their opinions not hold more sway that those of Accountancy firms or business group bodies?

 

So again, whether you find this truth to be uncomforable or not, the fact of the matter is that EVERY serious economic forcast we have seen to date has concluded that this nation risks its future prosperity should we vote to leave the EU. On that question of risk, I'm entirly 'non fussed' that you should seek to gamble away your future in exchange for the 'pocket full of promises' on offer from the likes of Nigel Farage, Michael Grove and that charlatan Boris Johnson. However, I'm rather less sanguine that dyed-in-the-wool kippers such as yourself should so glibly endanger the prospects of future generations who now rely on us to show at least some minimal concern in regard of their welfare.

 

Of course there is risk in us leaving. As I said above, this is a statement of the bleeding obvious and does not require any great intelligence to predict that. But what your blinkered viewpoint fails to acknowledge is that there are also risks in our remaining too. These economic forecasts from these bodies revered by you either don't consider the other side of that coin, or it doesn't suit the remain lobby to have those forecasts published.

 

As an illustration of how you fail to read things and comprehend them, I have stated categorically that I am a Conservative voter, always have been apart from on one occasion, the last European Parliamentary elections.

 

And what arrogance you demonstrate by accusing those who wish to leave the bloated and undemocratic EU of not caring for future generations. This is virtually half of the electorate. If you weren't so hypocritically glib yourself, you would recognise that the younger generation are entitled to vote themselves from age 18. Anybody much younger than that, might equally face a situation whereby our leaving has resulted in a longer term prosperity that might not have been achieved from our continuing membership.

 

As for your further unfounded allegations, it is unlikely that we will cease trading with the single market, at least in the shorter term. You obviously haven't read previous debating points about how other countries outside the EU managed to trade with the single market, or maybe those arguments failed to penetrate your brain.

[OldNick]

It is a concern that immigation is going to be one of the main reasons people want to vote out.

Batmans posts normally are about immigration when talking about Brexit. If immigration was stemmed it seems to me that the IN vote will win massively. IMO only one attack by a rouge immigrant leading up to the vote, could turn it into an out. Scary that our future is in the balance, Iam very non pro EU but believe our future is with them not apart as that is the economic way for the future.

[Sour Mash]

It is a concern that immigation is going to be one of the main reasons people want to vote out.

Batmans posts normally are about immigration when talking about Brexit. If immigration was stemmed it seems to me that the IN vote will win massively. IMO only one attack by a rouge immigrant leading up to the vote, could turn it into an out. Scary that our future is in the balance, Iam very non pro EU but believe our future is with them not apart as that is the economic way for the future.

You're clearly not "very non pro EU".

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Of course there is risk in us leaving. As I said above, this is a statement of the bleeding obvious and does not require any great intelligence to predict that. But what your blinkered viewpoint fails to acknowledge is that there are also risks in our remaining too. These economic forecasts from these bodies revered by you either don't consider the other side of that coin, or it doesn't suit the remain lobby to have those forecasts published.

 

As an illustration of how you fail to read things and comprehend them, I have stated categorically that I am a Conservative voter, always have been apart from on one occasion, the last European Parliamentary elections.

 

And what arrogance you demonstrate by accusing those who wish to leave the bloated and undemocratic EU of not caring for future generations. This is virtually half of the electorate. If you weren't so hypocritically glib yourself, you would recognise that the younger generation are entitled to vote themselves from age 18. Anybody much younger than that, might equally face a situation whereby our leaving has resulted in a longer term prosperity that might not have been achieved from our continuing membership.

 

As for your further unfounded allegations, it is unlikely that we will cease trading with the single market, at least in the shorter term. You obviously haven't read previous debating points about how other countries outside the EU managed to trade with the single market, or maybe those arguments failed to penetrate your brain.

 

So you accept that leaving the EU would represent a significant risk to our future welfare, but want to run said gamble anyway because you feel that staying in the EU is (for some reason) a risk too. The problem with that line, apart from its inherent stupidity, is that the two options are by no means comparable or remotly analagious. Of course we would continue to trade internationaly whether we form a part of the EU or not - every man and his dog knows that - the real issue at stake here is whether our trade would be damaged or not by our leaving the EU.

 

The risk of leaving the EU now is a huge one because we have absolutly no precedent to base any meaningful set of predictions on. In short - no bugger knows what will happen in our economy as a result of the Bretix gsmble you favour. On the other hand, we do now have years of precendent with our EU membership that does allow at least some reasonable assumptions to be drawn in regard to our future economic performance within the existing single market area and our GUARANTEED access to it. The record shows that this economy has performed relativly well of late - in no small part due to the single market methinks.

 

Therefore, the argument you are seeking to promote on here is a fundamentaly irresponsible one that would - if successful in the coming referendum - lead to potentialy adverse consequences for future generations that cannot even be acuretly understood or calculated at this time. There is a old adage that says thatba man should only gamble what he can afford to lose - we can't afford to damage our economy just because you kippers want to.

[Wes Tender]

So you accept that leaving the EU would represent a significant risk to our future welfare, but want to run said gamble anyway because you feel that staying in the EU is (for some reason) a risk too. The problem with that line, apart from its inherent stupidity, is that the two options are by no means comparable or remotly analagious. Of course we would continue to trade internationaly whether we form a part of the EU or not - every man and his dog knows that - the real issue at stake here is whether our trade would be damaged or not by our leaving the EU.

 

Look, I have already stated enough times that there is a risk in leaving this cosy little cartel. What I would like you to accept if it isn't too much trouble, is that there is also a risk involved in our staying in. Come on, you can do it if you try hard. I know that you find it difficult to accept that there is another side to a coin, but you seem very reluctant to acknowledge that. Could you please also acknowledge whilst you are about it, that we could also continue to trade with the EU and indeed with the single market. Looking to the future, it isn't the simplistic black and white view that you hold that might come to pass, but something impossible to predict with any accuracy, because it will be reliant on so many factors, like what the trading agreements we achieve will be, what the effects on the economy will be following the liberation of small businesses from the stifling bureaucracy currently imposed on them by the EU, whether the EU can survive the implosion that would follow the crash of the Euro, what the effects of immigration would be either inside the EU or outside of it, and many of factors which would need to assessed and taken into account.

 

What is inherently stupid, is the sort of broad sweeping generalisations that you have come up with, like the breathtakingly arrogant assertion that it is only the remain camp that are acting from a position of concern for the welfare

of future generations.

 

The risk of leaving the EU now is a huge one because we have absolutly no precedent to base any meaningful set of predictions on. In short - no bugger knows what will happen in our economy as a result of the Bretix gsmble you favour. On the other hand, we do now have years of precendent with our EU membership that does allow at least some reasonable assumptions to be drawn in regard to our future economic performance within the existing single market area and our GUARANTEED access to it. The record shows that this economy has performed relativly well of late - in no small part due to the single market methinks.

 

How many years are you allowing to back your case that we are better in than out? We have the experience of how we managed trade with the rest of the World before we joined, do we not? And we also can look at how other nations manage to trade with the EU and the rest of the World from which we can draw reasonable conclusions. We can also look back through our experiences of the European project from its inception and conclude that although it only started as a trading agreement, subsequent Treaties have morphed it towards a Federal United States of Europe. You're obviously content with that, but refuse to project that journey onwards into the future as part of your blinkered viewpoint. And again, you raise the single market as being key to our economic growth, with no idea whether we will leave that and no acceptance that other member states are also part of the single market and yet their economies are basket cases.

Therefore, the argument you are seeking to promote on here is a fundamentaly irresponsible one that would - if successful in the coming referendum - lead to potentialy adverse consequences for future generations that cannot even be acuretly understood or calculated at this time. There is a old adage that says thatba man should only gamble what he can afford to lose - we can't afford to damage our economy just because you kippers want to.

 

Again, this blatant arrogance from you that insists that the remain lobby are right and that anybody who wishes to leave is irresponsible and a bit thick. But thanks at last for acknowledging, even if inadvertently, that the situation the would follow our departure cannot be accurately understood or calculated at this time. Logically it follows that you have now recognised and agree with my argument that all of those economic bodies and indeed the treasury, have based their forecasts largely on guesswork.

 

Once again, it doesn't appear that you are capable or digesting what you read, as you continue to bracket me as a UKIP member, despite numerous denials from me. I belong to the same party as our Prime Minister and Chancellor, but that doesn't mean to say that I have to tow their party line on this and that you can therefore bracket anybody who takes a line closer to another party as being a supporter of that party. This issue transcends party boundaries, you know.

[Whitey Grandad]

Of course there is risk in us leaving. As I said above, this is a statement of the bleeding obvious and does not require any great intelligence to predict that. But what your blinkered viewpoint fails to acknowledge is that there are also risks in our remaining too. These economic forecasts from these bodies revered by you either don't consider the other side of that coin, or it doesn't suit the remain lobby to have those forecasts published.

 

As an illustration of how you fail to read things and comprehend them, I have stated categorically that I am a Conservative voter, always have been apart from on one occasion, the last European Parliamentary elections.

 

And what arrogance you demonstrate by accusing those who wish to leave the bloated and undemocratic EU of not caring for future generations. This is virtually half of the electorate. If you weren't so hypocritically glib yourself, you would recognise that the younger generation are entitled to vote themselves from age 18. Anybody much younger than that, might equally face a situation whereby our leaving has resulted in a longer term prosperity that might not have been achieved from our continuing membership.

 

As for your further unfounded allegations, it is unlikely that we will cease trading with the single market, at least in the shorter term. You obviously haven't read previous debating points about how other countries outside the EU managed to trade with the single market, or maybe those arguments failed to penetrate your brain.

 

There is an enormous difference between being in a single market and a free-trade agreement. The way that VAT is handled, for instance.

[Wes Tender]

There is an enormous difference between being in a single market and a free-trade agreement. The way that VAT is handled, for instance.

 

Did I say there wasn't? Since you raise the point, of course we are hampered on the VAT rates we charge by our membership of the EU

[derry]

I find it amazing that people are debating financial forecasts etc for fifteen years in the future by so called experts from either side who when they need to, can't forecast what's going to happen next month.

[OldNick]

You're clearly not "very non pro EU".

you're making that up.

 

I dislike the EU greatly but I can see that going out is a massive gamble that we cant then change.

[Wes Tender]

I find it amazing that people are debating financial forecasts etc for fifteen years in the future by so called experts from either side who when they need to, can't forecast what's going to happen next month.

 

Ah yes, but the remain camp are able to do that based on our membership of the EU over the past 43 years and so there is no uncertainty about our future for them. They can simply measure how we have benefited during that period and project it forward.

[Whitey Grandad]

Did I say there wasn't? Since you raise the point, of course we are hampered on the VAT rates we charge by our membership of the EU

 

Nothing to do with the actual rates at all. In case you (or others) did not know, VAT is not charged on intra-community dealings but is charged on imports from outside. This makes an enormous difference to cash flow and gives us a significant advantage when selling to another EU country as opposed to them buying from within their own.

 

Oor VAT rates are not on the whole set by the EU but by our own skint government.

[Whitey Grandad]

Ah yes, but the remain camp are able to do that based on our membership of the EU over the past 43 years and so there is no uncertainty about our future for them. They can simply measure how we have benefited during that period and project it forward.

 

Ah good! You're finally coming to some sort of grasp of the situation

[ecuk268]

Good point, even more of a reason to vote for Brexit (although no harm with it being spent on schools or hospitals).

 

You wish.

 

With this lot in charge it's more likely to go on feather-bedding the farmers and giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

And do you realise that GDP per capita is widely different from take home after tax.

 

The Government have never ever taken GDP and divided by the number of households to produce a family income . If they did today's average family income would be 67k. Even if the government did suddenly start using this measure and then predict the 2030 figure , you would surely divide the number of households in 2030 with the predicted GDP. But no, George's dodgy dossier divides the predicted GDP with the number of households in 2016,to reach this bullshine figure,despite the GDP being based on massive rises in immigration.

 

GDP may increase at a faster level in, but it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the EU favours the rich & big business at the expense of the ordinary working man . The Governor of the bank of England accepted that mass low skilled immigration suppressed wages . The chairman of BSE says wages will go up if we left , although he says that's not a good thing . Labour fought the last election on the basis that any growth in the economy assisted the rich but did not trickle down to the poor. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the EU in the same terms. Just taking GDP and dividing it ,is no way to measure inequality or the finances of the average man, and that's the reason it's never used .

[Johnny Bognor]

Labour MEP on the take for the tune of £500,000

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-36167299

 

At least the leftie hypocrite was jailed for it

Edited 29 April, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Batman]

Just talking Brexit on the Daily Politics show.

switched over with an American delegate saying the UK would most certainly NOT be at the back of any queue as there is no real queue.

 

Highlighted that the UK is a major investor in the USA and the USA in the UK. As big business rule, they would demand a deal be made with a non-EU UK immediately.

 

Also, pointed out that Obama will be gone in a few months and w very different president/administration taking over in either case, so his point is largely irrelevant when talking about British internal interests. America wanting the UK to stay in the EU is purely for their own self interest. An EU without the UK would have France setting the Major foreign policy interests, which is NOT in the USAs best interests etc