The result of the EU referendum:

[Udayana]

oh ... what fun   - but surely they will have had a boom whilst the rUK goes bust? They'd try and keep us out to stop being dragged back down again.

[jakswan]

So you clearly are Nigel Farage in disguise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

No you are Farage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29170924

Just because I might agree with a person on a single issue doesn't make me that person, good grief.

He's right to campaign for what he believes in isn't he, the dream will never die and all that.

Frank Field
Kate Hoey
Graham Stringer
Kelvin Hopkins
Khalid Mahmood
Roger Godsiff
Ronnie Campbell
Gisela Stuart
Dennis Skinner

Are all these Farage as well?

This does come across as the words of a man who clearly knows he is losing the argument.

Do you think you are clearly winning then? Everyone who disagrees with you is slightly mad?

[jakswan]

Or cover a small fraction of the £900million per week that our economy would shrink by if we weren't members of the EU.

Which report suggests the UK economy will shrink? You've put the treasury report in the bin because that one suggests the economy will grow if we leave.

[jakswan]

The problem with referendums on the kind of issues that aren't readily reversible is that if you are in favour of change you can lose as many times as you want, you only need to win once. And for those who want status quo yo can win as many times as you want but you only need to lose once for there to be irrevocable change.

That is a fundamental problem of the referendum system in a democratic sense, because it unbalances the effects of a vote for status quo and a vote for change and therefore isn't equitably democratic. I'm not saying I have an answer, just raising the issue. But certainly it isn't reasonable of a losing 'no change' vote ('Yes' in Scotland or 'Brexit' in the UK) to demand another vote in just a few years unless they would likewise accept a new vote in a few years had they won - but they wouldn't.

When we vote leave what do you think the chances are that we leave the EU. I think the chances of us leaving are 50-50, I have no doubt the EU will offer us a better deal.

Worth noting:-
http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-a-majority-of-swedes-want-to-leave-the-eu-after-brexit-2016-4

Same with Scotland I think Devo-Max might have been offered, isn't that what Salmond actually wanted originally.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which report suggests the UK economy will shrink? You've put the treasury report in the bin because that one suggests the economy will grow if we leave.

I have been very consistent in my post that I am talking about the comparison between two scenarios, effectively the difference between whether we stay or if we leave. We will be better off if we stay rather than leave.

But on whether leaving would actually shrink the economy rather than be worse compared to staying, well yes there are reports suggesting that. So that was what the Bank of England and Mark Carney suggested just a few days ago. And also looking at the various reports used within the treasury report - those that report the negative effect of leaving - well any that indicate a difference greater than our current growth predictions (of around 1.5-2% over the next few years if we stay) are indicating that the economy would shrink. So that is, at the very least:

Perhaps PwC/CBI predicting -3.1 to -5.5 or
Citi -4.0 or
Deutsche Bank -3.0 or
Nomura -4.0 or
Société Générale -4.0 to -8.0

[JP]

Not read the entire thing but just wanted to say...

Does anyone really believe the ordinary Joe in the UK will see any difference. If we leave, will all this money saved by not being in mean the NHS, education and all the other institutions and services will suddenly have all the cash they need, and will the man on the street find himself the beneficiary of the proposed economic boom once free of the EU shackles.

No. nothing will change.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you think you are clearly winning then? Everyone who disagrees with you is slightly mad?

I said he was losing the argument - and that is pretty clear - the Brexiters don't actually seem to have an argument, their entire campaign seems to be based on smearing highly respected individuals and organisations and doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong' to every single credible independent economic organisation.

One by one the Brexit leadership seem to be losing it - we've had the Farage 'I won't accept it if (when) we lose' and the Johnson 'EU and Hitler have the same goals' nonsense. You only start coming out with this kind of hysterical clap-trap when you have no cogent argument to give.

[Shaker]

Hysterical claptrap runs both ways however:

http://goo.gl/DWqJDq

[ProfessorDavey]

Not read the entire thing but just wanted to say...

Does anyone really believe the ordinary Joe in the UK will see any difference. If we leave, will all this money saved by not being in mean the NHS, education and all the other institutions and services will suddenly have all the cash they need, and will the man on the street find himself the beneficiary of the proposed economic boom once free of the EU shackles.

No. nothing will change.

Actually the coherent argument by the remain campaign on the economy backed up by respected expert after respected expert is being accepted but the ordinary Joe.

The most recent polling shows that by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 (49% to 26%) the public think that the UK economy will get worse if we leave compared to staying. And there is a similar difference when people are asked about their own standard of living.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hysterical claptrap runs both ways however:

http://goo.gl/DWqJDq

I agree - but the difference is that the remain campaign have non hysterical arguments too, and are backed up by evidence and the overwhelming (actually pretty well unanimous) agreement of credible independent economic organisations on the economy. And on wider influence and security issues, well we have no idea what ISIS actually think but we can see what company amongst world leaders the two camps are keeping. Remain supported by Obama, Clinton, all EU countries, the commonwealth, major security agencies and grouping etc etc. Leave supported by Trump, LePen and Putin (allegedly).

Brexiters seem to have no coherent and consistent argument on anything. They can't even agree what a post Brexit settlement with the EU should look like.

[ProfessorDavey]

No you are Farage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29170924

Where have I ever said that the Queen should have publicly intervened to support a No vote in Scotland?

You are making stuff up yet again. Can you still to my actual views, posted on this MB, rather than some bizarre notion of what you think I think.

Given that I am not a petty nationalist, nor a monarchist I think you will find that although I didn't support No in the referendum (for many of the same reasons I support remain in this one) the views of the Queen are irrelevant to me and I would certain not have supported her wading into the political argument on Scotland, as I don't on the EU referendum.

[JP]

Actually the coherent argument by the remain campaign on the economy backed up by respected expert after respected expert is being accepted but the ordinary Joe.

I am sure someone on the leave side could say the same

The most recent polling shows that by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 (49% to 26%) the public think that the UK economy will get worse if we leave compared to staying. And there is a similar difference when people are asked about their own standard of living.

But do they understand the arguments being made? If you asked them directly why they think as they do would they be able to give good reasons or would they parrot what others are saying taking it as gospel. I dont believe the vast majority would be ably to critically analyse the arguments, sift through the hypebole and reach a reasoned decision.

[Jack Knave]

That simply isn't true - by and large economists are pretty good at predicting matters into the future, and more so when they can get their teeth into two different scenarios which is the case here. Sure it might be the case that in both scenarios growth is a little better or a little worse than predicted, but predicting the difference between the two is very likely to  be correct. And in this case (unlike some others) there is no disagreement - all credible independent economic organisations agree that Brexit will be bad for the UK economy compared to remaining - and the reasons in the short term are obvious. The one thing that business and the 'economy' hate is uncertainty and with Brexit there will be massive uncertainty for years. Lets face it there isn't a consensus amongst the leading Brexit figures as to what the preferred economic and trading position should be with the EU post Brexit. If the campaigners haven't got a clue how on earth can business feel confident to invest etc.

This is all rubbish because if the UK starts to fail then the EU will because we buy 50-60 billion more from them than they do from us and the EU, and especially the Euro, is cracking up and is very fragile. They will also be weaker because of the lack of our membership fee. So they and the world will do all they can to give us a good deal so that the world financial market doesn't collapse.

But on the other point, actually I agree with you - it isn't just about the economics (although thats a factor). I'd have a lot more respect for Jakswan (as an example) if he accepted that the economic situation will be worse if we leave rather than remain, rather than somehow claiming that all the credible independent economic organisations are wrong and he (without one iota of economic credibility) is right. At least if he accepted we'd be worse off, but it is (in his opinion) a price worth paying, then we can have a serious debate. I'd disagree and indeed I think the EU is so fundamentally a good thing for peace, internationalisation, cooperation etc etc that I'd still be in favour even if there were a limited economic price to pay (which of course there isn't, quite the reverse). But trying to argue against all of the credible economic opinion is simply delusional.

Well, what I wrote above blows all that out of the water.

Peace? Ask the Greeks how they feel about the Germans; and visa vice. The EU is causing strife between it and its people. More and more are saying it is flawed and wrong and more and more the EU dig their high heels in and refuse to budge.

Internationalisation, cooperation? This only suits the elites and corporatists; the very rich, not the people and the person in the street.

[Jack Knave]

Yep, just understand that, as I would suggest was made clear in my previous post. Mentioning Hitler when many of the founders of the EU had fought against Nazism is deeply offensive. So if you hold the same principle, Boris is doing the same thing.

It doesn't matter what guise authoritarianism comes in it is all the same, the rule of the few over the many with absolute power; or near enough.

[ProfessorDavey]

Internationalisation, cooperation? This only suits the elites and corporatists; the very rich, not the people and the person in the street.

Don't forget that in the 50 years prior to the EU being formed the 'people and the person in the street' were likely to have been being conscripted to fight in one of two world wars, with its main base in Europe. I suspect the 'people and the person in the street' are extremely glad that internationalisation and cooperation means they haven't been conscripted to go to war in the past 70 years.

[Jack Knave]

In one sense yes, but Hitler - Jews, you heard about the holocaust right?

Ken brought up Hitler whilst defending someone who suggested all the Jews should be sent to the USA.

They should be sent back to Germany where they came from, now that the Germans are all nice and friendly people. 

[Jack Knave]

I take it jakswan and Nige are of the opinion that should leave win but by a narrow margin, we would need another vote on a few years too?

No, because the Leave campaign hasn't played dirty!

[ProfessorDavey]

No, because the Leave campaign hasn't played dirty!

So comparing the EU to Hitler isn't playing dirty!?!

Or calling on the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England for simply doing his jobs etc etc.

And of course there is the disinformation - trying to imply that all credible economic organisations are lying while not providing a jot of credible evidence to contradict them might not be playing dirty in one respect but it certainly isn't playing clean.

[Jack Knave]

I pretty much agree with this but the SNP changed after the referendum in quadrupling in size. There is a force of democracy that was recognised by Ledru-Rollin when he said 'Ve suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive'. That combined with the possibility of a Scots In, UK Out vote in the referendum can be argued to be such a change that another referendum would be justifiable.


That said I am getting bored of the constant campaign mode

That's fine by me but the Scots will find that the EU they are voting on isn't the one we have now because the UK won't be in it and this will make the EU fragile and near to bankruptcy.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's fine by me but the Scots will find that the EU they are voting on isn't the one we have now because the UK won't be in it and this will make the EU fragile and near to bankruptcy.

In a hypothetical situation where the UK left the EU it is indeed true that both the UK and the remaining EU would be negatively affected. And of course there is a double whammy for the UK, in that not only would leaving affect us directly but the negative impact on the rest of the EU would affect us indirectly too give that so much of our trade is with the EU. But of course with a much greater economic size the EU is much better prepared to be able to weather any storm compared to the UK which is about 8 times smaller.

So to use the analogies that are often applied to the USA - if we leave it will result in a severe cold to the UK and also the EU will have a few coughs and sneezes, which will rebound on the UK to cause pneumonia.

[Jack Knave]

Don't forget that in the 50 years prior to the EU being formed the 'people and the person in the street' were likely to have been being conscripted to fight in one of two world wars, with its main base in Europe. I suspect the 'people and the person in the street' are extremely glad that internationalisation and cooperation means they haven't been conscripted to go to war in the past 70 years.

Instead they have had their standard of living, in real terms, degraded and the war has been waged on them by the rich elites. Soon they will all be serfs to the corporatist feudal lords.

[Jack Knave]

So comparing the EU to Hitler isn't playing dirty!?!

Or calling on the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England for simply doing his jobs etc etc.

And of course there is the disinformation - trying to imply that all credible economic organisations are lying while not providing a jot of credible evidence to contradict them might not be playing dirty in one respect but it certainly isn't playing clean.

I was referring to the misuse of tax payers money and Whitehall etc. to get an advantage on the referendum debate. This will be a sore point if the Remain just manage to win within the Tory party.

[ProfessorDavey]

Instead they have had their standard of living, in real terms, degraded and the war has been waged on them by the rich elites. Soon they will all be serfs to the corporatist feudal lords.

So why are so many countries desperate to join the EU? Is it perhaps because they have seen the track record of the EU in developing the economies and standard of living of people in rather under-developed and poor countries to a state where they are broadly equivalent to the more established european economies. Being part of the EU makes countries richer and their people, from top to bottom, richer.

I think if you want countries that are really in thrall to corpora list feudal lords you should look across the Atlantic and perhaps to the kind of vision that Farage, IDS and Redwood would like in a post-Brexit UK, but which can't happen currently due to the tempering influence of the EU.

Don't forget that quote from Rupert Murdoch when asked by Anthony Hilton why he was so opposed to the European Union.:

'That’s easy, when I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'

[ProfessorDavey]

I was referring to the misuse of tax payers money and Whitehall etc. to get an advantage on the referendum debate. This will be a sore point if the Remain just manage to win within the Tory party.

Where have the remain camp misused tax payers money - that is a very strong allegation and one you'd better have evidence to back up.

I you mean the leaflet circulated by the government prior to the campaign don't forget that in every referendum the government is allowed to set out its views in advance of the referendum campaign. That's what happened in the 75 referendum, in those on devolution, AV vote, Scottish/Welsh independence, London Mayor etc and on this one. That is standard practice, completely accepted and not misuse of tax payers money. Are you somehow implying that this referendum should be run according to different rules to all other ones - special pleading at its most blatant clearly.

[Jack Knave]

In a hypothetical situation where the UK left the EU it is indeed true that both the UK and the remaining EU would be negatively affected. And of course there is a double whammy for the UK, in that not only would leaving affect us directly but the negative impact on the rest of the EU would affect us indirectly too give that so much of our trade is with the EU. But of course with a much greater economic size the EU is much better prepared to be able to weather any storm compared to the UK which is about 8 times smaller.

So to use the analogies that are often applied to the USA - if we leave it will result in a severe cold to the UK and also the EU will have a few coughs and sneezes, which will rebound on the UK to cause pneumonia.

Size isn't always a guarantee of survival, look at the dinosaurs!!! The small creatures were the ones who survived and populated the global. 

Size has costs and the EU's economy, especially the Eurozone, is stagnant, or nearly so, and just one more straw to the camels back and snap!!!!!