One absolute lie is that EU job seekers are sent home after 6 months if they haven't got a job.
There is no mechanism to do this and to date not one single one has been deported.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)
- Thread starter Rilot
- Start date
- Status
One absolute lie is that EU job seekers are sent home after 6 months if they haven't got a job.
There is no mechanism to do this and to date not one single one has been deported.
Well.
It follows logically, that they must know more than the leave camp, because there's a wealth of information and evidence about what it's like to be in the EU, because we're already in the EU - it's not an unknown.
It seems that from a remain perspective the more distant future is unknown to a certain degree, but it would stand to reason that a remain vote would not see the economy cast into the abyss, - not that I think a leave vote would do the same, but I do think a leave vote would cause some immediate harm to the economy.
There's also the problem of just about everybody in economics saying we should stay, for the good of the economy - I'm not an expert and on economics and never will be, so it's very difficult to get away from what 9/10 experts are saying.
Yes experts do sometimes make mistakes, but I think it's very unlikely that 9/10 could be incorrect.
Go and read the big short and then come back and tell me that economists should have missed predicting what was going to happen. You read that and you realize just how in bed institutes must be with banks to fail to acknowledge something so serious.
They saw the Euro suffering and yet still operated exactly as before??? That sounds responsible and reliable to me!
I'm not ignoring it and believe me I'm not misunderstanding it. Predictions are exactly speaking a gamble. I could predict I think numbers on the lottery tickets tonight might be 13/14/19/42/44 and *5*10... Because those numbers have never come up before so they are in a better mix.
Credit crisis? Do you even know one iota of the rules of credit? The credit "crisis" was solved by what ?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3739/Economists-Views-on-Brexit.aspx
The 9 out of 10 figure is in fact 1 out of 7 as out of 3818 asked only 561 out of 639 replies said leaving would be a bad thing.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,377
Economists don't have access to some very important information - future events and associated political decisions. Economics is not science and never will be. After every recession we ask ourselves "Which economist predicted this?" which should tell us something about its limitations.
The £4300 figure. This is a figure for fall in GDP in 2030 divided by number of households but the number of households used is wrong because they use the 2016 number of households instead of the 2030 number of households so the figure should be lower. That's a fairly minor point though; the bigger issue is that the figure is presented as "each household will be £4300 worse off" and this is simply false. You can't divide GDP by number of households and get a meaningful measure of how much households will be worse off.
Just as the statistics authority has told Leave off for using the £350m lie, they've also told Remain off for using the £4300 figure.
Pretty clear you haven't been aware of the fear the remain camp have used despite the open hypocrisy. Dave said if we didn't get a deal we'll leave... Now miraculously its a bad idea. Blair now saying stay despite his official stance to get him into the Labour party was "out of European politics". There is much more a quick G will tell you.
Do you not think there is a legitimate feeling of fear? we're voting on changing the way our entire country operates and fits in with the wider world - of course there's going to be fear.
DC did say that if he didn't get a deal we'll leave, but he did get a deal and renegotiated terms including some additional controls relating to immigration, so I'm not sure he can be accused of hypocrisy. There were some things he didn't get in the deal, but a deal was made nonetheless.
I'm not sure people are lying, the information on performance of the pound against the euro is all over the place right now, traders are so fickle on how they make their predictions, and it's looking like the vote will be very close and things are all over the place because of it:
http://www.euroexchangeratenews.co.uk/gbpeur-forecast-will-sterling-extend-gains-18257
If they cannot substantiate their claims, why are they literally all pulling in the same direction?
You'll obviously see my dilemma, because you're basically saying "all the economists are wrong" which seems highly extreme and I certainly wouldn't come to such a rash conclusion easily.
I do agree the £350M figure is misleading. However, so was the £4300 per household figure. A figure the treasury even stated was misused and misleading, and it was derived from one of their reports.
Edit: Beaten to it!
Jesus, you're so arrogant. I've read the Big Short, and the rest of them. I spend roughly 10 hours a day (for the last decade) interacting with traders, analysts, researchers, structurers, orignators, lev fin sponsors, economists, private equity employees, distressed investors, high yield bond managers and most importantly structured credit/legacy portfolio managers... the lot. What happen to be your credentials to make your wildly accurate assumptions?
At a wild guess, I'd imagine you're knowledge on the subject is hovering at around the 1% mark.
Honestly, from a capital markets perspective one of the main things that solved the credit crisis was the trading of illiquid debt created by it in the first place. The value derived from the distressed, illiquid and leveraged credit market (in both loan and bond form) as well as investing in well-placed special situations, proved immensely profitable. Hell, I know a former RBS trader who turned a PnL of £350mn in 2010 alone... when most pre-crisis distressed traders would roughly produce ~$15m in a decent year. Combine this with an appetite in 2010 for significant IG bond liquidity, as well as a prevailing appetite for interest rate, FX, commodity and equity securities, and the government interventions, and you have a shoring up of a market.
It must be painful having to climb up to that highest of horse of yours on a daily basis, and then brace yourself for a long day in communicating with such simple individuals as the rest of us.
If not lying painting a doomsday picture that does not correlate the to the facts though. Misleading at best.
I don't know why they are all pulling in the same direction. Maybe because they see instability in currency due to market investment and are forecasting on that. Right now can we at least Screeech agree that bets are being hedged and things will be in the planning to ensure their operations survive? At least can we say that's a given.
I do see your dilemma, I do. I'm saying both economists are wrong and it is based on uncertainty and a prediction that is based on something that cannot be comprehended.
If we did leave and the economy starts to tank, I would be asking why. If it was because of bully boy tactics of the EU which are increasing then that is unfair.
My mates company recently told its employees (boss has a holiday home in Europe) that they receive ESF grants... Should consider their job and vote remain to be secure... Staff didn't realize this and someone went looking... They don't get ESF funding... Boss lied.
Either way I think its best I leave this thread I should be sorting my holiday out for August, November and next year. Suffice to say no country I visit will be in the EU.
Whatever you all decide on voting folks I hope its what you want and is for the good of the UK's people and not big busines, politicians and their careers or people making decisions for you that you had no idea existed.
Good luck to both camps. Toodles
??
How the heck did you arrive there?
3818 were sent the survey, 639 responded overwhelmingly saying that leaving would cause a negative impact.
The 3179 who didn't respond, we have absolutely no data on whatsoever, so you can't say anything at all about it, you can't just conveniently convert that into 1 out of 7 saying it would be bad, based on non-response to the survey
Fair play
It's really annoying to me, because the true figure for per-household GDP loss is scary enough - and Osborne's point that this means less money for all the services we use is a good one - and the true figure for likely loss of household income is scary enough. So why use a misleading and inaccurate figure? It's just setting us up to get bogged down in stupid conversations about why the figure is wrong instead of discussions about how damaging Brexit will be to the economy and to household income.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,932
eddie izzard on question time lol
I know this is like asking for the pros and cons of Apple V AndroidHowever here goes,could some kind person list the main Pros and Cons for both sides? I've read most of this thread , tried to watch last nights debacle and still none the wiser.
My very limited opinion on this is UK has been OK for me over the last 25 years and it could be a lot worse so why change?
Anyone be kind enough
Well, I have had a go at it. I don't propose to know all the facts and figures, and I certainly have not captured every issue and I ran out of steam as I got towards the end but I have tried to be as objective as I can and lay down the pro's and cons for both sides. I hope this does not upset anyone here too much but here goes:
IN:
Pros:
- We retain free access to the single market, currently around 40% of our exports
- There is no risk of trade tarrifs being imposed to goods and services coming in or out of the UK.
- EU economic migrants can come to the UK and work with no need for work visas, green cards etc, and Vice Versa. This means in the UK we have plenty of labour to undertake jobs that lets say some of our youth are not too keen on doing, like construction labour, sanitary services etc, and means skilled, enterprising and educated immigrants can come here and make a good living without worrying too much about the red tape.
- Likewise, EU citizens can come and study in the UK, and vice versa, with no hastle.
- The EU can impose directives on the UK that will in effect normalise regulation across all member states, making trade between EU nations more compatible.
- European agreements allow simpler exchange of security information and arrest warrants for EU citizens across all member states.
- The EU organises trade deals with countries outside of the EU, that allow us access to those markets on the same terms as other member states.
- The EU Court of Justice has supreme and final say in matters of law over all member states and provides recourse for citizens who may disagree with any ruling of the state.
Cons:
- The EU is stagnating in terms of trade with itself and the rest of the world.
- EU directives have shorn into areas of regulation that far extend beyond trade, and are largely influenced by the body of lobbyists working in Brussels on the behest of big business.
- We currently have little chance of influencing these directives outside of the European parliament, (where we are quite often outvoted) and this influence will diminish over time as more member states join.
- The EU is on the march towards a Federal state, staying in will no doubt draw us with it. Some may say this is a good thing, although could ultimately lead to the demise of all EU member states national identity.
- DCam’s agreement to limit the UK in terms of “ever closer union” has the condition that will lose the UK its veto on issues that affect the draw towards federal Europe.
- The EU supreme court is often sticking its nose in where it does not belong…
- We cannot control the number of EU migrants in terms of numbers and spread of educated/uneducated (for want of a better way of putting it), and the more EU immigrants that come, the less commonwealth/rest of the world immigrants can be accepted. This can and does lead to a shortage of highly skilled workers (Surgeons, Nurses, Architects etc).
OUT:
Pros:
- We disconnect ourselves from EU directives entirely. Meaning we are no longer forced to implement those which do not affect our trade goods and services with the EU. This will allow us to go through a process of deregulation, potentially making UK business more competitive. Note: This “could” affect worker protection, such as working time, holiday pay, health and safety etc, however our standards are already often higher than those imposed by the EU and we for the most part came up with them anyway so I highly doubt they would be deregulated so I will discount this and mention it no further…
- We would regain supreme ruling over our legislative and legal statutes and precedents.
- We would be released from EU trade negotiations and be able to organise trade agreements with the rest of the world on our own terms.
- We would be fully able to control our borders better thereby controlling immigration to ensure that we could pick and choose the immigration we need (high skill/low skill and where they came from) and the numbers we can sustain, allowing us to plan better our public services such as the NHS, schools etc).
- We no longer would have to pay our membership fee (which is big - REALLY BIG) and this money could be used internally for whatever we choose.
- We will not be drawn into a federal Europe, European taxes, vat, laws, EU army etc etc.
Cons:
- It would take time to agree trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world. In this period of transience there would likely be instability – for how long and how extreme is frankly anyones guess.
- Forming any trade deal with the EU in particular would likely be long and protracted (especially if they get the hump that we have left).
- UK Citizens would lose free migration/education access to the EU, and would require Visas and work permits, green cards etc and would have to present passports at borders again (just as we had to before).
- Brexit has the potential to destabilise the EU as a whole. Read into that what you will, but look at Greece, the rise of the far right in europe...
Crikey...
Last edited:
Indeed, it's as though both sides are playing games to win over voters, but the end result is that the people who do any sort of analysis, it makes both sides look incompetent and illegitimate, so rather than trying to weigh up whether we stay or leave based on known pros and cons, it turns into a game of "who's telling the least amount of lies"
It's pretty disappointing to think that's how the decision will be made - who's being the most honest, because both sides seem to have skeletons in the closet.
Angela Merkel impersonating Michael Crawford.
- Status