Nope, but you biases mean you put a lot of faith in either the official Government line or those with a vested interest, and ignore those presenting a view that says that economic problems are the remain camps.
View backed by what projections, based on what data, from what source?
You can attack whatever you like in the government’s documents, the IMF statement, ONS and so on. But you have to attack the assumptions whilst making your own public, and costing them, in the given model or otherwise. Else it’s far too easy to say we will make a ‘special deal’, we can have extra X billions and look -- no costs = pure profit! Which is just silly. The uncertainty alone is already damaging us.
What I have been presented with in return were largely newspaper pieces, and people who themselves can hardly be described as independent, free or impartial to the result, lambasting credible international organisations, leaders, and just plain peddling the fantasy that ‘there are no risks, only freedom ahead’.
When questioned by the Treasury committee Leave did not offer much either. So what chance does an average swing voter have? Can’t you see that so close to the poll such hand-waving will either end up brushed under the carpet, hence a leap in the dark, or worse for Leave: the debate turns on the economy vs immigration? And issues that oppose the economy have a decent track record of losing (last GE, A/V ref, EEC ref, you can list examples all day).
Funny how the style of your original Hannan post was very much "look at this, he's talking rubbish I tell you" but when challenged otherwise you accept it wasn't all that and that he's just as bad (less bad, in my opinion) than the Government you put so much faith into.
I said here’s the full Spectator debate. Here are the most pertinent points on FullFact – don’t go by the video extract alone, posted earlier. Then I gave my opinion of Hannan, fairly low; gave one example of what doesn’t impress me, and left my opinion largely to one side. If I implied, or you’ve interpreted, that the full case against him was given in that original post, you’re mistaken. I leave characters to largely assassinate themselves.
Insanties reads the man differently and as more convincing in the debate, and that’s that – our perceptions based on the man’s record differ.
Brexit supporters would disagree and consider the costs of remaining in the EU over a 20/30/40+ year timeframe to likely far outweigh any short term costs leaving may incur.
Wouldn't they just? But the specifics of trade, rights and directives they wish to give up, for what and at what cost, are not forthcoming. If they want us to follow the Canadian model -- let it be said -- and if they dislike the projection for that, let them state their own, with their expectation of loss and profit, and let it be debated with the Chancellor, the Commission, BSE, GO – whomever. ‘Informal chats’ and ‘rumours about’ are just that – informal and not binding and not explicit.
I see no good reason, other than they’ve given up on it all, as to why they are struggling to supply anything but abuse directed against the Chancellor or a visitor’s ‘ancestral dislike of Britain’.
If you offer the people everything and nothing, take the country out of the EU and deliver something completely different to the wildly varying expectations, as events mould and beat the exit into shape, that’s the very definition of a dramatic ‘hoodwinked!’.
Answering my questions with questions now? Why don't you answer first: you continuously criticise Brexit for having no agreed deal, so what's your deal for the next 10/20/30+ years? How many new countries will join? How can you be so sure Turkey won't? 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? What happens if the Euro collapses? When will we next get a referendum?
See my reply to Skunkworks’ whataboutery earlier. But it won’t stop me asking the questions you find difficult, because I know they are difficult for you to answer concretely, without an ideologically charged monologue. If they highlight the costs and risks you’re ignoring -- all the better.
If you disagree with the official positions of national leaders, international institutions, their statistical bodies and projections – the onus of proof is on you to unseat the status quo with your own evidence, attack on the methods with a clear alternative showing the correct way to apply what you say is at fault or both. However, your track record seems to be merely stirring the conspiracy theorists on here. The battle of the crystal balls can be waged ad infinitum, but doing due diligence on the known unknowns, the present and the immediate future would help; a forecast is not that hard.
This is the first direct vote we have on the EU for over 40 years. Since then the people have never had a say on any of the new countries joining, the new treaties, the increasing powers, the continuous erosion of national sovereignty. Your promise of "but the Government wouldn't allow that" is weak and provably wrong, like the Single European Act which was rushed through Parliament late at night with little debate.
You mean the vote we’ve got every GE since we signed up, ran on average more frequently than every 5 years, before the fixed parliamentary terms act? Plus the previous referendum on the EEC? I understand that it’s disappointing for you that no Eurosceptic party, which wanted us unilaterally out, has ever assumed power. But crying ‘hoodwinked’, ‘unfair’, ‘rerun’ and ‘undemocratic’ is just drama.
We know full well we could’ve and can leave at any time, without a vote; and in the interim can challenge, reform, block and in extreme cases ignore the EU (with the obvious result that ultimately EU members that break with the treaties can be kicked out under the original articles, not even Lisbon, so there’s always that option, expensive as it is).
There are of course costs, which the Chancellor made clear, but if the calculus of the nation really fell into arrears with the EU, and it became untenable in 40/whatever years’ time, any PM can take us out and would – the referendum is not legally binding and is just a formality, serving as a nice warm up to the Tory leadership election. If we were rolling around in spare cash, we could have one every year!
Wrong. The track record and very likely trajectory of the EU "project" is the concern. Do you even pretend that the plan isn't for further and further integration towards a superstate? Or are you a supporter of said aim?
I’m not a supporter of conspiracies nor the Putinist interpretation of international organisations. Fret if you must. I say we stay, with our powers, human rights, rebate, exemptions and income intact, and pursue a policy of development of the EU as a sensible international forum that can trade on par and hold the same world influence as the USA and China.
If this means we have to negotiate, play the long game and ensure others play ball by the treaties they’ve signed up to – fine. The EU offers the best balance of economic and political power over the region, ensuring peace and stability – no member has invaded another member in recent history and no dictatorship has formed in the EU countries, as was the case previously – a worthwhile achievement in itself, and a reckless thing to abandon or destabilise on a whim; Europe’s problems are our problems, as much as it pains a few Atlanticists and nationalists to think otherwise.
The option of quitting, building up our armed forces and applying the iron fist within a silk glove, nostalgic approach to global diplomacy, floated once on here, is out of date, out of touch and is several orders of magnitude more expensive than our membership of the EU.
This is a 50/50 vote, stop trying to pretend that one option is the entirely safe choice and the other is so risky it's not even worth considering. Your inability to debate the issue without shouting all the time "but you've got no deal!" just won't ring true with those on the fence. They already know what the deal is, it's the one we've got right now, and they don't like it.
Well, we will just have to wait for the polling information from both campaigns to emerge after the referendum, won’t we? I hope you’ll believe those numbers at least.
The cost to risk ratio of Brexit has never been very appealing to me, and recently it got even worse, with clear figures to put into the arithmetic. Add to that my prior concern over where the Tory manifesto is heading and the funding gaps in it, I’m not convinced swallowing the economic underperformance, uncertainty of protracted deals and potentially having our local councils further restricted by a very native force is worth it!
For BSE, I can tell you we’re leading on the economy, jobs and trade, whilst people are still concerned about immigration levels (aren’t they always!). Yes, the voters are concerned about the costs of Brexit too; Obama is a slow burner; and the Chancellor is more effective than you give him credit for. Sovereignty pops up, in small drips and drabs, for particular demographics, and not too different from the Telegraph highlights; but it’s not an issue Leavers find easy to sell to the Labour swing voters.
If two weeks out from the vote, there’s no massive swing and it is “50/50” over lowering one’s standard of living and spiting ‘the establishment’ and hurting a few EU migrants – it’ll be a disaster for Leave when people start to commit. I’m reasonably confident we aren’t the only ones picking this up, since Vote Leave has decidedly shifted from ‘no need to even mention migration to win’ to ‘all hands to the populist boat’. Have you missed BoJo and Gove’s interventions? Do you believe they are anything in their heart of hearts other than committed globalists and free trade proponents? The converted will lap up whatever they say regardless.
If something new emerges, let me know.
