Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Your post was directed at me and not most people.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Yes, there are areas of contention in economics like medicine where many can be mistaken by making systematic errors on false assumptions or data. Medicine may be more clinical accurate but the processes still hold. I could give quite a few examples of errors, but we are talking prognosis but not economic instruments or scientific application.
Other errors en mass spring to mind.
The keynsian economists letter to the times, false assumptions.
About 90% of economic post-graduates unable to recognise the theory being tested in a questionnaire at stanford.
Medicine does this as well.
Thalidomide
Zantac
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
This paper looks ahead for the next twenty years in the event that the UK votes to remain within the EU. It assesses that net migration would be likely to remain very high or indeed rise further still, with serious consequences for our population and quality of life.
The paper focuses on EU migration and sets out two scenarios for a lower and higher estimate which are summarised in Annex A and B. Under the low migration scenario, EU net migration would not fall below 155,000 by 2035 and it would add 3.4 million EU migrants to the UK population by that date. Under the high migration scenario, EU net migration would be 220,000 a year by 2035, adding an additional 4.3 million EU migrants to the population of the UK.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/384
These figures even exclude the very real possibility that Turkey will join the EU in the next 20 years.
Possible 80 Million UK population within the next few decades ...
The paper focuses on EU migration and sets out two scenarios for a lower and higher estimate which are summarised in Annex A and B. Under the low migration scenario, EU net migration would not fall below 155,000 by 2035 and it would add 3.4 million EU migrants to the UK population by that date. Under the high migration scenario, EU net migration would be 220,000 a year by 2035, adding an additional 4.3 million EU migrants to the population of the UK.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/384
These figures even exclude the very real possibility that Turkey will join the EU in the next 20 years.
Possible 80 Million UK population within the next few decades ...
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,610
If the IFS is a just pro EU stooge then Migration Watch is just a pro Brexit stooge; you cant believe anything that they say as its all just biased scaremongering.
drew
Drew
Field of Dreams. Watch it and work it out.
You're assuming everyone has watched that.I didn;t bro.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
This gives the impression of the EU forcing the UK to give up powers against its wishes however it always been our elected governments choice to surrender power to the European union through acts of Parliament. Successive elected governments have taken the view since we joined in 1973, that in the majority of cases the pooling of sovereignty has been in our national interest.
When things don't work out its been easy for politicians to blame the EU without accepting the responsibility themselves. For example It was the Blair governments choice not to introduce transitional arrangements designed to limit the flow of migrants from the ex-communist eastern european countries in 2004. At the time the Blair government decided that this wasn't in the interests of the UK which is one reason why we have seen such large numbers coming to this country.
We are now not talking about protecting what we have we are considering the possibility of reversing back to a pre 1973 situation with the UK standing on its own presumably with no barrier free access to 500 million consumers, reduced cooperation with our neighbours and all the uncertainty that this brings with it.
Migration Watch = bastion of rigorous analysis.
OECD, IMF, Treasury, LSE, IFS, OBR = EU funded shills.
drew
Drew
Not everyone but I suspect quite a few on here have.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
Yes, founded and run by ex British Diplomat Andrew Green who regularly writes for the Daily Mail!
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,756
This is how the eu works for uk jobs, industries and economy, ask the undecideds to remember this when voting.
Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.
Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with with EU grants.
Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU 'regeneration' grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.
UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.
Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU
The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.
Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn't paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK, I used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., and now we don't even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.
I haven't detailed our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don't even go there.
I haven't mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.
Find something that's gone the other way, I've looked and I just can't. If you think the EU is a good idea,
1/ You haven't read the party manifesto of The European Peoples' Party.
2/ You haven't had to deal with EU petty bureaucracy tearing your business down.
3/ You don't care.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.
Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with with EU grants.
Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU 'regeneration' grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.
UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.
Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU
The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.
Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn't paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK, I used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., and now we don't even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.
I haven't detailed our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don't even go there.
I haven't mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.
Find something that's gone the other way, I've looked and I just can't. If you think the EU is a good idea,
1/ You haven't read the party manifesto of The European Peoples' Party.
2/ You haven't had to deal with EU petty bureaucracy tearing your business down.
3/ You don't care.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fle...ssan-and-toyota-would-prefer-uk-to-stay-in-eu
In a statement, Toyota said in 1992 it chose the UK for its first major manufacturing operations in Europe because of the open and free access to the European market, the availability of a skilled workforce, and the presence of a strong network of suppliers.
Today's FT editorial.... and I know it's "an organ of the Remain camp" 
“In the modern world it is worth distinguishing between the substance and symbols of sovereignty. The substance is the freedom to act independently — something that is now seldom possible for any single country.” So advised Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative party when urging Britons to vote to remain in the EU at the 1975 referendum on membership. More than 40 years later Tory Brexiters are still fighting for the symbols of sovereignty.
“Take back control”, the mantra of the Leave campaign speaks to an illusion, the notion that the Westminster parliament can exercise power untrammelled by any outside institution or authority. If this was ever true, it defies — even more than in 1975 — the present-day fact of a closely interconnected and interdependent world. It is a small step to argue, as do many sceptics, that the EU is a conspiracy against the nation state, an effort to subvert British freedoms in a European superstate. The evidence is otherwise. Germany is no less German, France no less French and Britain no less British for their membership of the EU. The stronger argument is that the union has rescued Europe’s nation states from the tyranny and conflict that described the first half of the 20th century. Real sovereignty is the capacity to advance the security and prosperity of the nation. Britain has been sharing it for centuries. Since 1834, when the Foreign Office started counting, it has signed more than 13,000 treaties and international conventions on issues ranging from war and peace and trade, to the environment and human rights. Each in their way has chipped away at the nation’s theoretical sovereignty. Most, if not all, have advanced the national interest.
In some areas, the EU treaties do reach further into national life than these other agreements, not least in setting the rules for the single market and providing for free movement of people. Governments have accepted the European Court of Justice as final arbiter in these spheres and delegated to Brussels authority over trade and environment, though Britain has remained outside the single currency and Schengen open borders system.
For all that Brussels occasionally wants to reach too deeply into the nooks and crannies of national life, this pooling of sovereignty can scarcely be said to have removed decision-making from the Westminster. On matters of national security, economic management, taxes and spending, social policy, health and education, planning and much more, all the choices are made by British politicians.
The Brexiters’ neuralgic obsession with abstract notions of sovereignty is confounded by the real-life experience of Britain’s 40-odd years of membership. Brussels played no part in the Thatcher revolution, in deregulation of labour markets nor, indeed, in the light-touch oversight of financial markets before the 2008 crash. Nor has the EU shaped international diplomacy or had any say in decisions to go to war. The gains from pooling sovereignty speak for themselves. Britain joined the EU as the “sick man of Europe”. Now its economic performance is among the best. The impulse has come from more intense competition, open access to the world’s most valuable single market and a ready supply of skilled workers. The Brexiters miss the irony when they cite today’s relatively strong economy as a reason to leave the EU.
Brexit would restore only the symbols of sovereignty. Interdependence has deepened with the advance of globalisation. The shift in economic power eastward and southward has made it harder for advanced European democracies to set the terms of economic relations. The rewards in this landscape accrue to those nations that remain open to competition and change. Beyond this, the union serves as a platform from which Britain can promote its interests and values. Crudely, it provides additional leverage in a world that no longer belongs to the west. By choosing to leave, Britain would surrender its role as a force multiplier and weaken its sovereign power.
What Westminster devolves it can reclaim. Each and every one of the international treaties signed by Britain, including its membership of the EU, rests on the continuing consent of parliament. The very fact that Britain is debating whether to remain in the EU and could choose on June 23 to leave should be proof enough for any waverers that the nation’s sovereignty remains unfettered.
“In the modern world it is worth distinguishing between the substance and symbols of sovereignty. The substance is the freedom to act independently — something that is now seldom possible for any single country.” So advised Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative party when urging Britons to vote to remain in the EU at the 1975 referendum on membership. More than 40 years later Tory Brexiters are still fighting for the symbols of sovereignty.
“Take back control”, the mantra of the Leave campaign speaks to an illusion, the notion that the Westminster parliament can exercise power untrammelled by any outside institution or authority. If this was ever true, it defies — even more than in 1975 — the present-day fact of a closely interconnected and interdependent world. It is a small step to argue, as do many sceptics, that the EU is a conspiracy against the nation state, an effort to subvert British freedoms in a European superstate. The evidence is otherwise. Germany is no less German, France no less French and Britain no less British for their membership of the EU. The stronger argument is that the union has rescued Europe’s nation states from the tyranny and conflict that described the first half of the 20th century. Real sovereignty is the capacity to advance the security and prosperity of the nation. Britain has been sharing it for centuries. Since 1834, when the Foreign Office started counting, it has signed more than 13,000 treaties and international conventions on issues ranging from war and peace and trade, to the environment and human rights. Each in their way has chipped away at the nation’s theoretical sovereignty. Most, if not all, have advanced the national interest.
In some areas, the EU treaties do reach further into national life than these other agreements, not least in setting the rules for the single market and providing for free movement of people. Governments have accepted the European Court of Justice as final arbiter in these spheres and delegated to Brussels authority over trade and environment, though Britain has remained outside the single currency and Schengen open borders system.
For all that Brussels occasionally wants to reach too deeply into the nooks and crannies of national life, this pooling of sovereignty can scarcely be said to have removed decision-making from the Westminster. On matters of national security, economic management, taxes and spending, social policy, health and education, planning and much more, all the choices are made by British politicians.
The Brexiters’ neuralgic obsession with abstract notions of sovereignty is confounded by the real-life experience of Britain’s 40-odd years of membership. Brussels played no part in the Thatcher revolution, in deregulation of labour markets nor, indeed, in the light-touch oversight of financial markets before the 2008 crash. Nor has the EU shaped international diplomacy or had any say in decisions to go to war. The gains from pooling sovereignty speak for themselves. Britain joined the EU as the “sick man of Europe”. Now its economic performance is among the best. The impulse has come from more intense competition, open access to the world’s most valuable single market and a ready supply of skilled workers. The Brexiters miss the irony when they cite today’s relatively strong economy as a reason to leave the EU.
Brexit would restore only the symbols of sovereignty. Interdependence has deepened with the advance of globalisation. The shift in economic power eastward and southward has made it harder for advanced European democracies to set the terms of economic relations. The rewards in this landscape accrue to those nations that remain open to competition and change. Beyond this, the union serves as a platform from which Britain can promote its interests and values. Crudely, it provides additional leverage in a world that no longer belongs to the west. By choosing to leave, Britain would surrender its role as a force multiplier and weaken its sovereign power.
What Westminster devolves it can reclaim. Each and every one of the international treaties signed by Britain, including its membership of the EU, rests on the continuing consent of parliament. The very fact that Britain is debating whether to remain in the EU and could choose on June 23 to leave should be proof enough for any waverers that the nation’s sovereignty remains unfettered.
This is bizarre! The fact that we are an open economy is the fault of the EU!! Overseas investment in the UK is a GOOD thing - it demonstrates that we have assets worth buying - but it's a two-way street (we invest around FOUR times as much in overseas companies as foreign companies invest in the UK).
The list above is just a small illustration of the fact that we live in a Global marketplace now. Unfortunately (as illustrated by your post), Leavers want to return to the pre-Industrial Age (having carefully pulled up the drawbridge and told the rest of the world to f*ck off).
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Many a true word spoken in jest!
One of these weird Remain diatribes quoted on here says Brexiters have a 'neuralgic obsession'-why can't these people speak English,instead of gibberish?
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
France must be very unattractive with so many of them wanting to come here over the centuries and interfere-nothing ever changes!
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
This is a classic example of blaming the EU for everything thats wrong with the UK. You don't think that successive UK governments have been implicit in this asset stripping and the move from an industrial to a service based economy? The fact is that beginnings of this go back to Thatchers policies in the 1980s of privatisation and deregulation, Thatchers original idea UK households owning stakes in our companies ended up opening the door for foreign ownership.
The truth is UK manufacturing has been in relative decline since the 1960s. Manufacturing as a share of real GDP has fallen from 30% in 1970 to 12% in recent years, this is a decline that has been seen across western countries. This is partly also been driven by rising real wages leading to a move away from labour intensive industries to higher tech and service sector based industries but also a strong pound and the inability of the the UK to remain competitive with lower wage cost economies, like China.
Its entirely logical that companies have moved their operations to countries where there are lower costs, and if you want to talk about why Dyson moved to Malaysia, go speak to one of your own Brexit campaigners James Dyson, I am sure his decision would't have changed regardless of if we had been in or out of the EU at the time!
The picture is of course different in Germany where manufacturing is (as a share of its economy) twice the size of the UK, the difference being that the German state supports its industry base. So if Germany can do it whilst at the same time adhering to all the EU laws and so called red tape, then its hardly the EU thats to blame for the state we have got ourselves in is it?
Bladders
Twats everywhere
Wrong again I'm afraid. Leavers WANT to trade with the rest of the world, not stuck in an EU trading block that has to suit 27 other nations.