Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,221
- Location
- RG8 9
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)
- Thread starter Rilot
- Start date
- Status
It will be the same as before. There will be a poll but I expect it to start during the evening before polls open and it will stay open.
Yes that "special" relationship means that the tories would happily welcome private "investment" in the NHS.
The US "deal" would be let us access everything and we'll give you a tiny percentage of our markets...
I'm still surprised that anyone with any basic math can say that the UK would have spare cash should they leave.
The jittery markets post brexit would more than wipe out any money the UK pays into the EU which if my sums are right is about 1.3% of tax revenue.
Considering a large chunk of GDP is made by the financial markets....
Assuming revenue from tax is 648 billion and net contribution is around 8 billion.
I just wish that the OCUK forumites were this vociferous about the fact that there's 38 billion spent on defence !
Last edited:
John Major said it best:
I mean, the concept that the people running the Brexit campaign would care for the national health service is a rather odd one. I seem to remember Michael Gove wanting to privatise it. Boris wanted to charge people for using it. And Iain Duncan Smith wanted a social insurance system. The NHS is about as safe with them as a pet hamster would be with a hungry python
I just wish that the OCUK forumites were this vociferous about the fact that there's 38 billion spent on defence !
I don't mind us spending £38 billion on our military (come on, it's not defence); I do mind us spending billions on destroyers that can't even cope with the heat in the Middle East.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,757
- Location
- Welling, London
Not sure about the actual football, but god forbid, a terror attack could harm remains cause quite badly.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Which is daft really as we still do border checks regardless.
Yeah, because terror attacks don't happen outside the EU...oh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36480764
Yup, there we go. A few hours of downtime results in a 48h extension.
I don't think so. I think the British people are more resilient than that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
We should push the ref back a couple of months, just to make sure.
I think the assumption that it's all young people who are struggling to register may well prove to be false. I think a lot of them will be white, working class folks who are much more likely to vote Leave. In any case, no-one should be complaining that people who are eligible to vote, are registering to do so.
If they can accommodate it, then I have no problems with this being extended. Certainly looking like a great turn out for this. Literally everyone I know is talking about this referendum with a good split of views.
Better still scrap the matches.
Yes, the more registered (and voting), the more reliable the verdict and less likely to be contested.
Probably a rush after seeing Farage / Cameron last night. George Osborne tonight
Last edited:
And there we have an example of the logical fallacy the Remain camp's "economic experts" are so full of, and yes, I'm aware of the double-entendre of "full of".
There is an assumption that post-exit "jitters", given a decision to leave, exceed pre-referendum jitters over uncertainty about it going either way. I personally know of some financiers that have plans for the post-decision situation whichever way it goes, and see opportunities either way and, professionally at least, don't care which way it is.
It also assumes a negative impact of leaving, and unless you have a time machine, nobody knows what the medium or long term impacts will be. Even if trade with the EU is badly hit, which in itself is an assumption especially given the dire predictions of some German forecasters on German businesses and the German economy of a UK exit causing a serious trade downturn, there is the optimistic view that even if being outside EU trade barriers causes a drop in EU trade, we will be outside the EU barriers along with the rest of the planet, and that should significantly boost trade with them.
All these "experts" predicting doom and gloom make assumptions about the impact on trade with the EU, trade with everybody else, and the relative size of the two.
Change those 'assumptions' even a fairly small amount and the economic outlook goes from frosty, to warm and glowing.
Nobody knows.
When the OP says post-exit jitters "would" wipe out any savings from contributions, there's no "would" about it.
There's a "might". But not a "would".
And even that is in the short-term.
As an EU member, we are commited to contributions based on a complex model but significantly linied to relative economic performance. We don't know what our economic performance in the future, onvwhich future EU budget rounds will be decided, look like and we certainly don't know what our "relative" performance will be. What happens if the Euro crashes? What happens if Greece defaults, and takes, oh, Italy with it? What happens to contributions if we do reasonably well, and France, Spain, Italy etc stagnate?
And that very moving target is compared to an unquantifiable "jitters", because while we don't know how big those jitters will be, we do know for a certainty that an element of jitters is already priced in, and has been to varying degrees since Cameron announced the referendum.
And even then, the "jitters" are about the short-term. It might negatively impact for a year or two. But what will the "jitters" be in five, fifteen or thirty years? This decision is not about short-term jitters. It's about long-term prosperity, and where we believe our future, long term prosperity lies. Short-term jitters might (not would) cause short-term pain, but are irrelevant in the long-term. And if we Remain, we will be paying contributions for the long term. That much, short of a Remained UK having an utter economic meltdown, we do know.
This decision is about all sorts of issues, from views about sovereignty and, in or out, our place in the world, to control or lack of on immigration with all it's implications, good and bad, to economic prosperity in the long-term but basing a decision with fundamental long-term implications on transient short-term jitters is severe myopia.
I'm not so sure and there is a good chance we will never see what would happen.
It's not really an assumption, you can see a by age breakdown of voter registrations, and the 18-24 and 25-35 age groups come top although there are a good number in all age groups. I agree that assuming that new registrations are going to be Remain biased is a presumption too far.
For once, Scorza, we are in complete agreement
Just because we can't be certain how exactly it will pan out doesn't mean that there can't be informed opinion on what the likely outcome will be. Almost every reputable economic body that has made a prediction agrees that Brexit would hurt the UK economy. Just the uncertainty during negotiations should be enough to do meaningful damage.
This is not how it works. If we leave the EU will not suddenly face lower tariffs on our goods, they will remain the same or increase (in those cases where we are currently part of an EU deal that lowers them). What tariffs we impose on other countries would be up to us, however we'd be bound by WTO rules and it would politically difficult to justify have lower tariffs on foreign imports than are imposed on our own exports.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
Their predictions are little more than "rocking the boat is more risky than not rocking it". Anything beyond 2-3 years and they might as well be predicting the weather.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Yep, not just Cameron though. The idiot Labour leader too. Many postal votes in, do they get revealed to the PM early?
- Status