The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[zygalski]

John145 said:

zygalski said:

The economy has bounced back rather quicker than most predicted from having Labour in power from 1997-2010. We don't seem to be in the ruinous state that many on here seem to think we would be. As a Labour supporter I have to apologise for our former government not damaging the UK economy anything like as badly as many a patriotic PHer would have liked.
Anyway, regardless of the recent past, the UK is doing rather well on the economic front & has been for the last few years. The UK is also a member of the EU.
QED

Imagine how much better we would be doing if we could maximise the value of immigration. If we had free trade with India and China and Brazil. Imagine how much better we would be doing if we could set our own vat rates.

Pure speculation. I'd rather deal in known knowns.

[John145]

zygalski said:

Pure speculation. I'd rather deal in known knowns.

I guess you don't own a mobile phone then, after all a landline is a known known.

The only way the uk will remain prosperous is the dabble in the Unknown. We will never compete on the known knows, that's what india, China et al are good at.

The great unknown is equal regardless of whether we are in or out. If we are in though, we can't control how we respond and based on known knows we know the eu don't have the dynamism to respond.

[John145]

EddieSteadyGo said:

You don't understand how it works - it isn't the case that we could pay in £5bn / week and we would get out £50bn, nor is it a magic money tree.

The benefits we get are related to the increase growth from trade by being part of the largest single market of 500m people. This has a positive effect on our economy.

The £250m is our contribution, like a membership fee, to gain the benefits from being in the club.

If the membership fee is increased or reduced, it wouldn't affect broadly the economic benefits we gain.

But the fact remains that we gain from trade more than the costs of membership. Hence as I mentioned it is one reason why pretty much all independent parties agree that from a financial perspective we are better off in.

Increase wealth for the few. A broad nothing for the majority.

[EddieSteadyGo]

John145 said:

Imagine how much better we would be doing if we could maximise the value of immigration. If we had free trade with India and China and Brazil. Imagine how much better we would be doing if we could set our own vat rates.

The Leave campaign have made no official estimate, as far I am aware, as to the potential benefits from free trade agreements with the countries you mention.

Would have been very interesting to see it if it exists.

If you had experience of working and selling in some of those countries you mention, you would know that the barriers to entry are very deep and are not just overcome by a free trade agreement on its own.

--
Edited to use the relevant quote

Edited by EddieSteadyGo on Sunday 29th May 12:59

[John145]

EddieSteadyGo said:

John145 said:

A conservative government, business focused, would thrive in our global economy. Being in fortress Europe, it's genuinely surprising how well we've done as a nation. But - this performance is not felt by the whole population, the richer you are the more you notice it.

The Leave campaign have made no official estimate, as far I am aware, as to the potential benefits from free trade agreements with the countries you mention.

Would have been very interesting to see it if it exists.

If you had experience of working and selling in some of those countries you mention, you would know that the barriers to entry are very deep and are not just overcome by a free trade agreement on its own.

It's the job of government to set out these estimates. Not that of lobbyists. Although that would require a government that acted like a democratic institution.

[amgmcqueen]

zygalski said:

Funk said:

zygalski said:

But it does show a wide consensus regarding the economic implications of Brexit among economists.
I put more faith in them in judging the economic costs/benefits than the man in the pub.

So we've found the 'price' for relinquishing control of our country then; the mere threat of some economic turbulence is enough. By voting to stay in we're agreeing to continue ceding control of our country to faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.

Our trade with the EU is declining, we're probably more important to them than the other way around. They're also petrified of contagion and other countries seeing us go. For that reason I have no doubt they will do everything they can to make it hard for us, despite the fact we're also a huge importer from them. Should we stay in because of such threats? No.

We would also be free to grow our trade with the rest of the world and this could more than offset the comparatively small trade we do with other EU countries or losses from exiting.

The EU is about power at all costs. It will do or say whatever it has to to retain that power and control.

If you want to vote for dogmatic & parochial reasons with a sod the consequences mindset then that's your choice. I'll vote for what I think is best for the long term future of the UK.
Proud to be English.
Proud to VOTE REMAIN

Proud to be English....but you would rather be ruled by an unelected, German run EU? We stay in the EU for further decades and the so called England you're proud of will be a distant memory.

Our culture has already been severely damaged by scumbag Bliar and his mass immigration policy.

Oh, and papering over the cracks with borrowed £Billions does not mean our economy, or any other economy in the EU has, as you call it 'bounced back'!

[EddieSteadyGo]

John145 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

John145 said:

A conservative government, business focused, would thrive in our global economy. Being in fortress Europe, it's genuinely surprising how well we've done as a nation. But - this performance is not felt by the whole population, the richer you are the more you notice it.

The Leave campaign have made no official estimate, as far I am aware, as to the potential benefits from free trade agreements with the countries you mention.

Would have been very interesting to see it if it exists.

If you had experience of working and selling in some of those countries you mention, you would know that the barriers to entry are very deep and are not just overcome by a free trade agreement on its own.

It's the job of government to set out these estimates. Not that of lobbyists. Although that would require a government that acted like a democratic institution.

This isn't correct. The Leave campaign are a well funded organisation with significant private donations as well as access to public funds.

They could have easily commissioned an authoritative body to examine the potential upsides from free trade deals with the countries you mention.

I think you will find the reason they didn't is that the answers wouldn't be as helpful as you might expect.

[///ajd]

EddieSteadyGo said:

John145 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

John145 said:

A conservative government, business focused, would thrive in our global economy. Being in fortress Europe, it's genuinely surprising how well we've done as a nation. But - this performance is not felt by the whole population, the richer you are the more you notice it.

The Leave campaign have made no official estimate, as far I am aware, as to the potential benefits from free trade agreements with the countries you mention.

Would have been very interesting to see it if it exists.

If you had experience of working and selling in some of those countries you mention, you would know that the barriers to entry are very deep and are not just overcome by a free trade agreement on its own.

It's the job of government to set out these estimates. Not that of lobbyists. Although that would require a government that acted like a democratic institution.

This isn't correct. The Leave campaign are a well funded organisation with significant private donations as well as access to public funds.

They could have easily commissioned an authoritative body to examine the potential upsides from free trade deals with the countries you mention.

I think you will find the reason they didn't is that the answers wouldn't be as helpful as you might expect.

Indeed, the silence is deafening on the economic benefits of brexit.

If they had made a good case it would be a hard decision - leaving could be a good option. But it demonstrably isn't.

[John145]

EddieSteadyGo said:

This isn't correct. The Leave campaign are a well funded organisation with significant private donations as well as access to public funds.

They could have easily commissioned an authoritative body to examine the potential upsides from free trade deals with the countries you mention.

I think you will find the reason they didn't is that the answers wouldn't be as helpful as you might expect.

The leave campaign is minuscule compared to the government.

[John145]

Surprisingly the winners from this graph are also purporting the greatness of the eu. Was the eu setup in 1993?

[EddieSteadyGo]

John145 said:

Surprisingly the winners from this graph are also purporting the greatness of the eu. Was the eu setup in 1993?

Honestly, your stats look spurious to me in regards the point you are making. Putting aside the fact relative wealth distribution is a completely separate topic.

But if you did want to look at the topic objectivity, I would recommending looking into the gini co-efficient.

This is widely regarded at one of the best measures for assessing the distribution of wealth across a society.

The closer the value is to 0 the more equal the wealth. The closer the value to 100 the more unequal it is.

So if the figure were 100, one person would have all the money. If the figure were 0, everyone would have the same.

From what I have seen, the distribution of wealth became more unequal in the UK during the 1980's but has since levelled off and has stayed broadly the same since the 1990's.

[John145]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Honestly, your stats look spurious to me in regards the point you are making. Putting aside the fact relative wealth distribution is a completely separate topic.

But if you did want to look at the topic objectivity, I would recommending looking into the gini co-efficient.

This is widely regarded at one of the best measures for assessing the distribution of wealth across a society.

The closer the value is to 0 the more equal the wealth. The closer the value to 100 the more unequal it is.

So if the figure were 100, one person would have all the money. If the figure were 0, everyone would have the same.

From what I have seen, the distribution of wealth became more unequal in the UK during the 1980's but has since levelled off and has stayed broadly the same since the 1990's.

Relative wealth is off topic? Then the whole economy may as well be off topic.

Your graph has no reference to the source data and I have never heard of a gini coefficient. I'd rather keep the statistics simple, it avoids opportunities for duplicity.

without data, the base qualitative information leads to only 1 logical outcome.

Uncontrolled immigration > wealth disparity

The key word being uncontrolled. Incase there was any doubt.

[EddieSteadyGo]

John145 said:

Relative wealth is off topic? Then the whole economy may as well be off topic.

Your graph has no reference to the source data and I have never heard of a hobo coefficient. I'd rather keep the statistics simple, it avoids opportunities for duplicity.

without data, the base qualitative information leads to only 1 logical outcome.

Uncontrolled immigration > wealth disparity

The key word being uncontrolled. Incase there was any doubt.

You haven't heard of the gini co-efficient and claim you are interested the distribution of wealth?

Sorry to be blunt, but you have some education and reading to do....

[John145]

EddieSteadyGo said:

John145 said:

Relative wealth is off topic? Then the whole economy may as well be off topic.

Your graph has no reference to the source data and I have never heard of a hobo coefficient. I'd rather keep the statistics simple, it avoids opportunities for duplicity.

without data, the base qualitative information leads to only 1 logical outcome.

Uncontrolled immigration > wealth disparity

The key word being uncontrolled. Incase there was any doubt.

You haven't heard of the gini co-efficient and claim you are interested the distribution of wealth?

Sorry to be blunt, but you have some education and reading to do....

Be as blunt as you want. I call a spade a spade and obvious things are obvious.

There is no rational defence to uncontrolled immigration outside the founding member states.

[John145]

Also when you present data, it is the norm to cite the origin.

[EddieSteadyGo]

John145 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

John145 said:

Relative wealth is off topic? Then the whole economy may as well be off topic.

Your graph has no reference to the source data and I have never heard of a hobo coefficient. I'd rather keep the statistics simple, it avoids opportunities for duplicity.

without data, the base qualitative information leads to only 1 logical outcome.

Uncontrolled immigration > wealth disparity

The key word being uncontrolled. Incase there was any doubt.

You haven't heard of the gini co-efficient and claim you are interested the distribution of wealth?

Sorry to be blunt, but you have some education and reading to do....

Be as blunt as you want. I call a spade a spade and obvious things are obvious.

There is no rational defence to uncontrolled immigration outside the founding member states.

You can call it as you see from your perspective. But if you want to get the full picture you need to read some of the studies which have been done on this topic.

Honestly, the gini coefficient is not a "hobo" measure. It is a very useful and objective tool to judge exactly the issue you are referring to. It is also one of the key metrics the experts in this field use.

[EddieSteadyGo]

John145 said:

Also when you present data, it is the norm to cite the origin.

Have a look on google, read some of the articles written by experts. Then come back and tell me it is a "hobo" measure.

[John145]

Hobo was mobile phone typo, corrected now...

[John145]

What it also shows is that there is no improvement within the eu, maybe we should see if there's an improvement outside?

[EddieSteadyGo]

John145 said:

What it also shows is that there is no improvement within the eu, maybe we should see if there's an improvement outside?

Re the distribution of wealth in the UK, as a starting point which is easy to read have a look at this article written by John Rentoul

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/daily-...

If you have more time try this from the IFS;

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r...

Then you have the proper facts to form an informed view. You will also notice that the gini coefficient features prominently in nearly all expert articles on this topic.