The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[sparkie]

When was this report produced sparkie?

Published today, but there were similar figures mentioned 2 or 3 weeks back ?

 

[Triggaaar]

Published today, but there were similar figures mentioned 2 or 3 weeks back ?

You'd think it's important to know what our economy would be like if we left the EU wouldn't you.

Ask yourself why this report wasn't completed before the government chose which campaign to back. If it had been completed months ago, then at least you could give it some weight as to not being completely biased. But as it is, the government have decided how they want us to vote, and made a report to back up their argument. Government Leave campaigners aren't even allowed to ask for reports that back their campaign, as it is against government policy.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You'd think it's important to know what our economy would be like if we left the EU wouldn't you.

Ask yourself why this report wasn't completed before the government chose which campaign to back. If it had been completed months ago, then at least you could give it some weight as to not being completely biased. But as it is, the government have decided how they want us to vote, and made a report to back up their argument. Government Leave campaigners aren't even allowed to ask for reports that back their campaign, as it is against government policy.

plus the 9 million pounds of tax payers money spent on the leaflet campaign sent through the letter box
regards
DR

 

[sparkie]

You'd think it's important to know what our economy would be like if we left the EU wouldn't you.

Ask yourself why this report wasn't completed before the government chose which campaign to back. If it had been completed months ago, then at least you could give it some weight as to not being completely biased. But as it is, the government have decided how they want us to vote, and made a report to back up their argument. Government Leave campaigners aren't even allowed to ask for reports that back their campaign, as it is against government policy.

OK, so it distills down to what each of us believes is the answer to :


Was the Government 'bias' caused by their reasons for staying in, or were the reasons for staying in made up because of their 'bias' ?

 

[gregbrighton]

Is this a wind up? Firstly, the government are campaigning for us to vote to stay in, so they're saying anything they can to make us vote to stay in. That includes producing reports that make it look like it would be bad if we left. Their objective is to make us stay in, not to give an accurate report.

Secondly, even if the government were trying to do an honest and accurate report (which obviously they're not), they'd still get it wrong, because predicting the future of our economy is so difficult. Every year the treasury predict what our economy will be like in 1 years time, and every time they are wrong. Now they're supposedly predicting what it will be like in 2030 if we were to leave the EU, and you think it's a fact.

You can't be for real.

So, if the Treasury is wrong, as you say, it could actually be a lot worse. For all we know, the Treasury could be painting a rosier picture on what could be an economic catastrophe.

To be honest, I would be more inclined to listen to what the Treasury says based on their financial assessment than the unsubstantiated incoherent guesses that Johnson, Farage and the other Brexit airheads are spewing out.

 

[Triggaaar]

OK, so it distills down to what each of us believes is the answer to :

Was the Government 'bias' caused by their reasons for staying in, or were the reasons for staying in made up because of their 'bias' ?

No. If they had the report done months ago, that may then have influenced which campaign they wished to back, but it happened the other way around.

So, if the Treasury is wrong, as you say, it could actually be a lot worse. For all we know, the Treasury could be painting a rosier picture on what could be an economic catastrophe.

Predicting the future is difficult. What we do know is that the government want us to vote 'stay in', so we know that all the information they give us will be promoting their aim. The government would have come up with several scenarios as to the possible future, and scenarios within the different possibilities. What they have presented to us is the worst that they could come up with, so it's extremely unlikely the reality could be a lot worse than their scaremongering.

For example, this 8p tax nonsense is on the basis of us not doing a deal with the EU as good as Norway or Switzerland, but instead based on a Canadian-style model, which wouldn't be appropriate for a country that trades with Europe as much as us. And within that idea, it's on the basis of us not improving trade with commonwealth countries, which is also absurd.

To be honest, I would be more inclined to listen to what the Treasury says based on their financial assessment than the unsubstantiated incoherent guesses that Johnson, Farage and the other Brexit airheads are spewing out.

You're kidding yourself if you think any party is going to be completely honest with you. Regardless of whether you usually vote Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem or Ukip, you should understand that all parties lie and they never give the whole truth. It's their job to twist things to make it look like they're the best party. Wholly believing what any side says is like closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and singing.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

those numbers from Osborne and PWC are over the 13 years to 2030. recalculate the contributions on the same timescale and review. if we take the £8.5Bn net noted above, thats a total cost of £110Bn, and this assumes no increase in our contributions (there will be at least two rounds of increases by 2030).

Ever so slightly self-defeating to imperiously instruct me to "recalculate the contributions on the same timescale and review" when you're making a mistake - the Osborne figures are per annum, not over 13 years as you announce. There are 27 million households in the UK and that times £4300 is the annual cost to households he is predicting. Now as I have already agreed, the figures could be wrong. Mr Osborne has an agenda. Other bodies predict less. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that the economy will shrink by 2.5 per cent compared to Mr Osborne's 6 per cent. This implies that the annual cost per household will be proportionately lower - say £2000. Other bodies predict a figure between 6 per cent and 2.5 per cent. But unless they are all fools and propagandists there will be a very considerable cost.

There are plenty of households to which a loss of even £4300 a year won't matter much. But there are plenty that will be wounded by it, and will still be wounded if the figure is half that.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yep, and until recently I was spending a quarter of a million a year on my business, just like we send £13bn to the EU. Both figures may be true but they are also totally meaningless, as you know must know. It is bottom lines that count and Boris and Nige's implications that leaving the EU will save us £13bn are as nonsensical as me claiming that packing up my business will save me £250k a year. In every real sense they are lying.

I am surprised you would consider sending £13 Billion of taxpayers money to the EU as meaningless. It is true to say leaving the EU will stop this and free up the money so it can be spent by us on our priorities.

Our contribution was £13b and we get £4.5b back. So the net cost is £8.4b. How the accountancy works I don't know, maybe you do. Possibly like VAT returns, you work out what you owe and and what you can deduct and pay the balance. Perhaps you could show records from the governments bank where we transferred to the EU £13b (or even just over £1b each month).

Fact is the Brexit enthusiasts like to portray the cost as more than it actually is rather than be honest.

Yes we send £13Bn to the EU and the EU decides how much of our money we can have back through numerous channels, including applying for EU funding at some bureaucratic cost or matching any funds returned with even more UK taxpayers money.

 

[drew]

You'd think it's important to know what our economy would be like if we left the EU wouldn't you.

Ask yourself why this report wasn't completed before the government chose which campaign to back. If it had been completed months ago, then at least you could give it some weight as to not being completely biased. But as it is, the government have decided how they want us to vote, and made a report to back up their argument. Government Leave campaigners aren't even allowed to ask for reports that back their campaign, as it is against government policy.

I think you will find that Cameron has always been in favour of staying in the EU. He hasn't just decided!

Is this a wind up? Firstly, the government are campaigning for us to vote to stay in, so they're saying anything they can to make us vote to stay in. That includes producing reports that make it look like it would be bad if we left. Their objective is to make us stay in, not to give an accurate report.

Secondly, even if the government were trying to do an honest and accurate report (which obviously they're not), they'd still get it wrong, because predicting the future of our economy is so difficult. Every year the treasury predict what our economy will be like in 1 years time, and every time they are wrong. Now they're supposedly predicting what it will be like in 2030 if we were to leave the EU, and you think it's a fact.

You can't be for real.

When do you think the treasury started number crunching for this report? It has been published today but could well have been started before Cameron was even negotiating with the EU!!!

As for the stats, the report states that by comparison to staying in, we will be 6% worse off by leaving. That supports the argument to stay in. Perhaps instead of using headline catching adjectives slagging off the 'in' campaign, the Leavers could come up with statistics that support the leave campaign.

Fact is, the report is an assessment about what may happen. It can't be factual because it is about the future. The leavers are in the same boat in that they can only make estimates as to what happens.

 

[drew]

No. If they had the report done months ago, that may then have influenced which campaign they wished to back, but it happened the other way around.

Predicting the future is difficult. What we do know is that the government want us to vote 'stay in', so we know that all the information they give us will be promoting their aim. The government would have come up with several scenarios as to the possible future, and scenarios within the different possibilities. What they have presented to us is the worst that they could come up with, so it's extremely unlikely the reality could be a lot worse than their scaremongering.

For example, this 8p tax nonsense is on the basis of us not doing a deal with the EU as good as Norway or Switzerland, but instead based on a Canadian-style model, which wouldn't be appropriate for a country that trades with Europe as much as us. And within that idea, it's on the basis of us not improving trade with commonwealth countries, which is also absurd.

You're kidding yourself if you think any party is going to be completely honest with you. Regardless of whether you usually vote Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem or Ukip, you should understand that all parties lie and they never give the whole truth. It's their job to twist things to make it look like they're the best party. Wholly believing what any side says is like closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and singing.

So, are you in favour of a Norway type agreement with the EU then?

 

[Triggaaar]

I think you will find that Cameron has always been in favour of staying in the EU. He hasn't just decided!

I'm aware of that, I was simply explaining that the report was done with a biased agenda.

As for the stats, the report states that by comparison to staying in, we will be 6% worse off by leaving. That supports the argument to stay in. Perhaps instead of using headline catching adjectives slagging off the 'in' campaign, the Leavers could come up with statistics that support the leave campaign.

The Leavers aren't even allowed to ask for stats that support leaving.

So, are you in favour of a Norway type agreement with the EU then?

Exactly as Norway's agreement, no. Norway and Switzerland can trade freely with the EU for the things they wish to trade, and they allow free movement of EU citizens in return. Our agreement would be more along those lines than the Canadian style agreement that the government have chosen to use to prepare this joke of a report.

The facts are that the UK need to trade with the EU and the EU need to trade with the UK - if the EU stopped trading with the UK, the EU would collapse post-haste, and Germany and France would then trade with the UK without the EU. So the reality is, a good deal would be done that worked for the EU and the UK. It wouldn't be nothing like Canada's deal, and it wouldn't be like Switzerland's or Norway's either.

 

[drew]

8.4B just how many hospitals, schools, or even doctors, nurses, teachers can you buy with that
besides I don't want us to be a member of a federal europe, we stood alone for most of our existance, in fact we stood alone in protecting most of those ungrateful states that now are dictating whats,what to us
NO,NO,NO,

You need to look beyond the membership bill. It's not a case of how many hospitals etc could be paid for by the £8.4b but how many might not be paid for if our exports to the EU fall because we are out of the EU circle.

 

[drew]

I'm aware of that, I was simply explaining that the report was done with a biased agenda.

It may have been but you will say that because it doesn't support any 'exit' arguments.

The Leavers aren't even allowed to ask for stats that support leaving.

Exactly as Norway's agreement, no. Norway and Switzerland can trade freely with the EU for the things they wish to trade, and they allow free movement of EU citizens in return. Our agreement would be more along those lines than the Canadian style agreement that the government have chosen to use to prepare this joke of a report.

The facts are that the UK need to trade with the EU and the EU need to trade with the UK - if the EU stopped trading with the UK, the EU would collapse post-haste, and Germany and France would then trade with the UK without the EU. So the reality is, a good deal would be done that worked for the EU and the UK. It wouldn't be nothing like Canada's deal, and it wouldn't be like Switzerland's or Norway's either.

What would it be like then? The report gives three scenarios, Norway/Switzerland, Canada, WTO. You seem to dismiss them all because the stats suggested, don't back up your argument but the Brexit supporters don't come up with anything to counteract this. They can't even give guesstimates as to how much better off we'll be.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I have seen too many "dodgy dossiers" issued by Governments to support their cause , to put faith in this....
I only know that a significant number of experienced prominent politicians still think it is a good idea to leave . The real future is unpredictable .

I am for Brexit.

 

[pastafarian]

So, are you in favour of a Norway type agreement with the EU then?

No

Everyone is in favour of a Britain type agreement with the EU.
Come back in a couple of years when the negotiations have finished and you can have a final copy to read yourself,all the fine detail will be in it and that way no one has to invent any mystic meg style predictions like the remain camp currently do.

 

[drew]

I have seen too many "dodgy dossiers" issued by Governments to support their cause , to put faith in this....
I only know that a significant number of experienced prominent politicians still think it is a good idea to leave . The real future is unpredictable .

I am for Brexit.

Is that really the basis of your argument? Some experienced politicians thinks it's a good idea to leave. Well there are some experienced politicians that think it's good to say. Oh dear, that arguments negated then!! What else have you got.

 

[drew]

No

Everyone is in favour of a Britain type agreement with the EU.
Come back in a couple of years when the negotiations have finished and you can have a final copy to read yourself,all the fine detail will be in it and that way no one has to invent any mystic meg style predictions like the remain camp currently do.

Well if you want to convince me to vote to leave, give me some idea as to what the agreement will involve? What exactly are the Brexit team hoping will be negotiated. You must have a starting point in the negotiations.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I am surprised you would consider sending £13 Billion of taxpayers money to the EU as meaningless. It is true to say leaving the EU will stop this and free up the money so it can be spent by us on our priorities.



Yes we send £13Bn to the EU and the EU decides how much of our money we can have back through numerous channels, including applying for EU funding at some bureaucratic cost or matching any funds returned with even more UK taxpayers money.

I am sorry, but you are indulging in wordplay.

Of course £13bn isn't a meaningless sum of money but viewed in isolation with no regard to any return on it the figure means nothing. But I imagine you know this anyway.

 

[sir albion]

Well if you want to convince me to vote to leave, give me some idea as to what the agreement will involve? What exactly are the Brexit team hoping will be negotiated. You must have a starting point in the negotiations.

We will negotiate to what we want and we will negotiate much further afield in larger quantities without the red tape restrictions of the EU.

How about you show a bit more passion and be proud of Great Britain in going forward in the way we want to instead of being brittle and scared like many.
This is our country and we will succeed and flourish and dictate what we want instead of being dictated by Germany and France and the fools in Brussels.

Time for us to do it our way again just like we did for hundreds of years

 

[Triggaaar]

What would it be like then? The report gives three scenarios, Norway/Switzerland, Canada, WTO. You seem to dismiss them all because the stats suggested, don't back up your argument

No you're very wrong. I dismiss them all because I have a brain, and it's blindingly obvious we'd do our own deal. Which deal did Norway do - answer, they did their own deal. Same with Switzerland.

If you take Switzerland's economy, add Norway's, then double them both, they're still nowhere near the size of the UK economy, so to pretend we have to have exactly the same deal as them is daft.

It may have been but you will say that because it doesn't support any 'exit' arguments.

You're so so wrong - as I made clear here:

You're kidding yourself if you think any party is going to be completely honest with you. Regardless of whether you usually vote Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem or Ukip, you should understand that all parties lie and they never give the whole truth. It's their job to twist things to make it look like they're the best party. Wholly believing what any side says is like closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and singing.

So of course the politicians supporting Brexit will lie and twist figures to support their argument, as will those campaigning for us to stay in.

I won't just believe what people like Farage and Johnson say, and I won't believe what Cameron says either. I'll think for myself, what is the logical outcome. The only logical outcome is that the UK and the EU will do a deal that stops it all going tits up.