Whereas you of course have no prejudices, are completely objective, unbiased and are only posting for the good of the people and the planet?
I still need to reply to your freedom of movement post (which I will do in due course, busy few days) but I found your criticism of Danial Hannan quite funny, considering his "mental gymnastics" as you put it is pretty mild compared to some of the rhetoric coming out the remain campaign.
- On his taxes claim fullfact quote "Daniel Hannan's claim is therefore correct."
- On his claim that Europe has shrunk as a percentage of the world total - your linked fullfact report confirms the "EU does make up a smaller share of global GDP than it did then."
- On his hospitals quote they say he's overestimating the cost of an NHS hospital, not trying to make his claim sound better by under estimating (and yes I know you consider the EU's "material errors" in spending acceptable)
- On his migration claim - yes you can delineate between Government policy and EU freedom of movement, but no doubt his response would be that current Government policy wouldn't be required (as they would likely say, anyway) if we could better control the numbers of EU people coming into the UK
Compare the above to the Government changing "directives" to "all laws" in their summary of the Norweigan EU study, and it's clear to see "mental gymnastics" are being deployed on both sides of the argument, and I would argue the remain camp are more guilty (i.e. blatant propaganda through the letterbox / Treasury "analysis").
My biases aren't Brexit's economic problems.
The people are free to read the full FullFact entries, Hannan in that regard is not different to any man of the establishment and the entries only begin to scratch the surface of what he is angling at. Most often, it's giving a vision without the cost presented based off a specific case that says something somewhat relevant, but not quite. As is the case with my hospitals clarification -- it really is irrelevant what he thinks we can extract 6, 10 billion or whatever the trendy gross figure is, or that he can roughly divide it up into a number of hospitals, nurses, whatever -- that's not how it works, he, I and you know this. But it makes for nice slogans.
Trouble is the costs of Brexit absorbing any advantages, and as I've said on several occasions, eating ideology is not an option. Particularly in the scenario of a bi-lateral deal.
You and the rest of the we must remain camp seem to think that not being able to provide details/confidence of any new negotiation is a flaw so severe that leaving just isn't worth considering. A few points:
- You realise that risk-taking is the basis of all entrepreneurial success? If everyone just maintained the status quo because doing anything otherwise would just be too risky, we would never advance and progress would never be made
- What does your deal with the EU look like in 10/20/30 years time? How many new countries will join? What will our net contribution look like over that timeframe? How can you guarantee we will never join Schengen? How can you guarantee we will be exempt from ever-closer union? Don't say "but we get to vote on those things" or "because Dave said so", that's a weak argument compared to a voter's ability to clearly say yes/no in the referendum.
It's all very well to criticise because we haven't negotiated and don't yet know the post Brexit deal, but a lot of Brexit supports don't care; they're much more concerned about the trajectory of the EU and what our relationship will be in years to come, which equally you can't provide details/confidence around. Add to that of course that a lot of Brexit supporters can envisage where the EU is heading, and don't like it.
Yes, Mulder, that's of vital importance: details; any details. Saying 'had informal chats', 'a risk worth taking', 'poorer but in control' is not good enough. How big of a risk? How much would it cost? Whose control, where and at what level of accountability? What rights will I lose? Whom do I hold to account for the 'special deal'? Who's even going to write it? Cameron, Boris -- who?
The rest's just gunk.
You had the projections already, we know our veto powers, people are free to vote in very conservative governments which will keep blocking the most radical measures, including new EU members, deals, budgets, whatever.
But, for the most part, the trajectory of the EU based on actions of our sovereign future government seems to be the concern, and, alas, tis the same problem on Brexit: you can hardly guarantee a stable existence and 'land of milk and honey that gives power back to the people' on the same grounds. Sadly, you aren't big on discussing the risks, planning for them or giving them straight. I'm sure Vote Leave has people who can publish their own 'biased' projections full of 'complex mathematics'.
