[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

I work with him, he is incredibly well informed and dedicated to his research. Would take his word over a career bureaucrat or politician every time on this topic.

Much like Patrick Minford?

That's laughable in terms of credibility. The leave campaign have simply extrapolated figures and ignored that the UK as an economy is 77% service based. Trade deals are usually for goods, not services.

The reason why it has taken so long to strike a deal with the US and other countries is that the negotiations are complex. There is also the issue that should Trump get in, he is a protectionist, so there is no logical reason why he would accelerate a trade deal with the UK ahead of the much larger market in the form of the EU

That figure maybe as credible as the 3 million UK jobs being dependant on our EU membership Remain claim. But I think it is likely we will gain from doing trade deals with some of the biggest fastest growing economies in the world.

Yes deals that need 28 countries agreement to start then have to factor in 29 different negotiating positions do take a long time. Whereas 2 negotiating positions might produce faster results. Firstly I doubt Trump will get in and second surprisingly his view was more positive than Obama's back of the queue threat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...n-would-not-be-at-back-of-the-queue-for-a-us/

 

[El Presidente]

Much like Patrick Minford?

Nope. Minford is a clueless buffoon who was one of the designers of the Poll Tax, and an advisor to Thatcher.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Nope. Minford is a clueless buffoon who was one of the designers of the Poll Tax, and an advisor to Thatcher.

Ouch .... I am sure he speaks very highly of you!

 

[El Presidente]

But I think it is likely we will gain from doing trade deals with some of the biggest fastest growing economies in the world.

At present we export more to the Republic of Ireland than to the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) put together.

Brazil is having a constitutional civil war at present, Russia is institutionally corrupt (I'm presently barred from travelling there due to a competitor bribing local officials) India is impossible to sell to due to bureaucracy and China has no laws protecting intellectual property.

By all means put forward a case for Brexit from a democratic deficit perspective, but there is no economic logic in such a decision in terms of employment, prices, growth and choice.

 

[El Presidente]

Ouch .... I am sure he speaks very highly of you!

We high five daily

 

[El Presidente]

sigh


https://www.google.co.uk/#q=accelerated+eu+membership+turkey

Wow, linking to Russia Today loonster, always a credible source.

 

[Chief Wiggum]

Apologies if fixtures but I found this film very interesting from the perspective of some of those on the left. I find it difficult to work out Jeremy Corbyns position on the EU when surely his natural position would normally be in agreement with them?

 

[Two Professors]

Turkey first applied for membership nearly 30 years ago. It's not coming anytime soon. In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear there would be no enlargement of the EU for five years. even then Turkey has mountains to climb.There is huge opposition- not just from these shores.

Then why are we wasting money we supposedly havn't got,on trying to get Turkey in?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

At present we export more to the Republic of Ireland than to the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) put together.

Brazil is having a constitutional civil war at present, Russia is institutionally corrupt (I'm presently barred from travelling there due to a competitor bribing local officials) India is impossible to sell to due to bureaucracy and China has no laws protecting intellectual property.

By all means put forward a case for Brexit from a democratic deficit perspective, but there is no economic logic in such a decision in terms of employment, prices, growth and choice.

I'm not arguing an economic case for Brexit but don't believe there are only the predicted negative economic consequences if we leave the EU.

Having the freedom to strike free trade deals with whoever we choose, when we choose, purely in our national interest is one positive.

 

[BadFish]

Probably been posted but just in case

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y&feature=youtu.be

 

[Eeyore]

View attachment 75899

Then why are we wasting money we supposedly havn't got,on trying to get Turkey in?

Expedience most likely. The UK is not seriously committed to Turkey joining. Angela Merkel even made it clear that it's not on the agenda.

 

[5ways]

sigh
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=provision+definition

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=accelerated+eu+membership+turkey

Still don't see any provision for an EU army, nor any actual evidence Turkey is going to join the EU in the next 300 years.

 

[5ways]

I'm not arguing an economic case for Brexit but don't believe there are only the predicted negative economic consequences if we leave the EU.

Having the freedom to strike free trade deals with whoever we choose, when we choose, purely in our national interest is one positive.

Freedom to strike trade deals as the junior partner and have terms dictated to us. Like Switzerland and China. Switzerland couldn't even reduce tariffs on its watches, while knock-offs can flood Switzerland because China leveraged total access. Economic size matters. We will have bigger and better trade deals if we work with the EU. Moreover the whole Brexit plan is to dynamite our existing biggest and best trade deal with the largest market in the world (the EU) and then pick up the pieces afterwards, offering pounds of flesh to Brazil and Malaysia. It's economic arson.

 

[rocker959]

'People often complain about voting these days. They say it doesn’t make any difference. They say that whatever party they choose they get the same old broken promises. In fact, they say there is no point in bothering at all. Well, whatever you say about this referendum campaign, it is a moment of fundamental decision. When you pick up your ballot paper this Thursday, you have it in your hands to transform Britain’s current democratic arrangements for the better. You can change the whole course of European history – and if you vote Leave, I believe that change will be overwhelmingly positive.

What is the Remain camp offering? Nothing. No change, no improvement, no reform; nothing but the steady and miserable erosion of parliamentary democracy in this country. If we vote Remain, we stay locked in the back of the car, driven by someone with an imperfect command of English, and going a direction we don’t want to go.

If Britain votes to Remain in the EU, then we continue to be subject to an increasingly anti-democratic system that is now responsible for 60 per cent of the law that goes through Westminster – a phenomenon that contributes so powerfully to the modern voter’s apathy, the sensation that we no longer control our destiny, and that voting changes nothing.

If we vote Remain, we do nothing to rebuke the elites in Brussels who have imposed the euro on the continent, and thrown a generation of young people on the scrap-heap, and who are utterly indifferent to the misery they are causing for the sake of their bankrupt ideology.

We will remain prisoners of a trade regime that will not allow this country – the fifth biggest economy on earth – to negotiate with America, or China or India or any of the other growth economies of the world; because that privilege is reserved exclusively for the hierarchs of the European Commission, of whose vast staff only 3.6 per cent come from this country.

If we stay, we will find our global influence and weight not enhanced, but diminished – as the EU ruthlessly cuckoos us aside from our seat on international bodies, from the IMF and the UN and the WTO to even the North East Atlantic Fisheries Management Board, which determines the fate of the fish in so much of UK waters. Iceland has a seat; Norway has a seat; the Faroe islands have a seat. The UK is represented by the Commission.

We are not more powerful, or more influential for being around the table in Brussels – look at the pitiful results of the so-called renegotiation earlier this year. We are drowned out. And it is an illusion to think that if we vote to Remain, we are somehow opting for the status quo. The status quo is not on offer. If we stay in, we will be engaged willy-nilly in the desperate attempt to keep the euro together, by building an economic government of Europe. We have already seen how we can be forced to bail out the debtor nations; and we have seen – in the absence of border controls – how the despair in southern Europe contributes to the substantial flows of migration, which show no sign of diminishing. If we vote to stay then I am afraid the whole EU caravan carries blithely on; and when I think of the champagne – guzzling orgy of backslapping in Brussels that would follow a Remain vote on Friday, I want to weep. We must not let it happen.

Think of what we can achieve if we vote Leave. We can take back control of huge sums of money – £10.6 billion net per year – and spend it on our priorities. We can take back control of our borders, and install an Australian-style points-based system that is fair both to people coming from the EU and from non-EU countries.

We can do global trade deals that the EU commission itself believes could generate another 300,000 jobs. Above all we could take back control of our powers to pass laws and set tax rates in the interest of the UK economy. We can reorientate the UK economy to the whole world, rather than confining ourselves to an EU that now amounts to only 15 per cent of global GDP.

Why shouldn’t we do this? When in the history of this country have we gone wrong by believing in self-government? As this campaign has gone on, the Remain campaign has become more and more hysterical in its threats and warnings, to the point where very few people now believe in them. The IMF? Why on earth should the Treasury expect us to believe the IMF – when it was only a couple of years ago that the Treasury was bitterly (and correctly) denouncing the IMF for running Britain down. People can sense the true motives behind Project Fear. It isn’t idealism, or internationalism. It’s a cushy elite of politicians and lobbyists and bureaucrats, circling the wagons and protecting their vested interests.

Finally the Remainers are now desperately trying to suggest that anyone who wants to Leave is somehow against the spirit of modern Britain; against openness, tolerance, decency. What nonsense – and what an insult to the people of all races and parties and ages and beliefs who simply want to take back control of this country’s democracy.

It is we who want to give power back to people. It is we who want to stand up against the corporatist and elitist system that will never admit its mistakes. That is why we believe in democracy – because it is the best way humanity has found of correcting the errors of our rulers; and we are mad to throw it away.

Now is the time to believe in ourselves, and in what Britain can do, and to remember that we always do best when we believe in ourselves. Of course we can continue to provide leadership and support for Europe – but intergovernmentally, outside the supranational EU system.

I hope you will vote Leave, and take back control of this great country’s destiny; and if we Vote Leave, then all our votes will count for more in the future. This chance will not come again in our lifetimes, and I pray we do not miss it.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-thursday-because-well-never-get-this-chance/

Hear , hear !!!

 

[5ways]

JC would you agree that the list of following recipients of the Nobel prize in economics are a bunch of clueless chancers who couldn't forecast rain in the Amazon?


Economic issues are central to the UK referendum debate. We believe that the UK would be better off economically inside the EU. British firms and workers need full access to the single market. In addition, Brexit would create major uncertainty about Britain’s alternative future trading arrangements, both with the rest of Europe and with important markets like the USA, Canada and China. And these effects, though one-off, would persist for many years. Thus the economic arguments are clearly in favour of remaining in the EU.

George Akerlof
Kenneth Arrow
Angus Deaton
Peter Diamond
James Heckman
Eric Maskin
James Mirrlees
Christopher Pissarides
Robert Solow
Jean Tirole
Winners of the Nobel prize in economics

 

[Steve in Japan]

Has anybody seen a strong rationale for Remain that is NOT driven solely by economics? I might have missed it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Has anybody seen a strong rationale for Remain that is NOT driven solely by economics? I might have missed it.

There's plenty out there. Google is your friend.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Has anybody seen a strong rationale for Remain that is NOT driven solely by economics? I might have missed it.

You can't have been trying very hard. There have been plenty of rationale on both sides outside immigration and economics - whether you believe them or not is another matter, not to have seen them - have you been living in a shoe?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

JC would you agree that the list of following recipients of the Nobel prize in economics are a bunch of clueless chancers who couldn't forecast rain in the Amazon?


Economic issues are central to the UK referendum debate. We believe that the UK would be better off economically inside the EU. British firms and workers need full access to the single market. In addition, Brexit would create major uncertainty about Britain’s alternative future trading arrangements, both with the rest of Europe and with important markets like the USA, Canada and China. And these effects, though one-off, would persist for many years. Thus the economic arguments are clearly in favour of remaining in the EU.

George Akerlof
Kenneth Arrow
Angus Deaton
Peter Diamond
James Heckman
Eric Maskin
James Mirrlees
Christopher Pissarides
Robert Solow
Jean Tirole
Winners of the Nobel prize in economics

Blinded by titles, appeals from authority and so it continues ...

George Akerlof

Asymmetrical information

Kenneth Arrow

Social choice theory

Angus Deaton

Consumption, poverty and welfare

Peter Diamond

Labour market search and match

James Heckman

Statistical methods to correct selection bias

Eric Maskin

Mechanism design theory

James Mirrlees

Moral hazard, asymmetrical information and optimal taxation theory

Christopher Pissarides

Labour market search and match

Robert Solow

Exogenous growth model

Jean Tirole

Dual sided markets

All very bright men and all Nobels thoroughly deserved for excellent work and insights. And yet none of them really experts in the precise details of the subject under discussion. We are rather here akin to discussing how to treat cancer with some of the world’s best orthopedists, heart surgeons and urologists rather than with an oncologist.

But the real error here is the failure to properly consider Bastiat. The choice to be made on Thursday is not whether we remain within the European Union as it is or set sail into the uncertain seas of restored sovereignty (also known as we get to do what we want not what they want). Rather, our choice is whether to continue sailing in the SS European Union off to that proposed nirvana of a centralised continental superstate with a common treasury, the idiocy of the euro and fiscal union, or whether we decide to take matters into our own hands and protect ourselves from such nonsenses.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Has anybody seen a strong rationale for Remain that is NOT driven solely by economics? I might have missed it.

Not a Strong rationale no ...