EU membership referendum debate thread

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 04 Jul 2016, 21:04

This is getting hard to watch even from my safe distance. Every party leader bails and nobody has a plan for going forward or even a plan for an election to sort it out?
It's like watching a middle school girls cat fight. Lots of hair pulling and crude language but few effective punches thrown.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 04 Jul 2016, 21:28

Actually my own party leader has not resigned and no-one is trying to push him out.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 04 Jul 2016, 21:47

But we're also hearing nothing of him in the mainstream media (certainly nothing I've seen).

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 04 Jul 2016, 21:57

The way things work. The media report on what they think they should report on. Luckily there are other better more complete sources of information.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 04 Jul 2016, 22:23

Blue Peter wrote:
woodburner wrote:What is "harm" in your opinion? Calling it "harm" is just a weasel word.
Basically the economy will not perform as well as it would remaining in,

Won't it? How would it perform if we stayed in?

......principally due to less trade (what exactly will happen will depend upon how Brexit is done).

Do you have any supporting evidence?

This will translate into less public spending and higher taxes, which will tend to hit the poorest hardest.

The poor have been being hit hardest for at least the last 5 years, by the present government, and we are still in the EU. How do you explain that?

And, because we are deeply entwined with Europe, to extract ourselves will take a great lot of work by government, which will accordingly not be working on other things,

Er, you mean other things like hitting the poor hardest?

Your speculation really doesn't stack up, does it? I take it you voted "remain".

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 05 Jul 2016, 07:23

The government from 2010-2015 did distributional analyses of the budgets to ensure that the consequences of bringing the deficit gradually under control were felt equally by sectors of society based upon expediture and income deciles. This stopped in 2015.

Just because an assertion is often not challenged particularly in certain media (Guardian, Independent) does not mean that the assertion is true.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 05 Jul 2016, 10:14

woodburner wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
woodburner wrote:What is "harm" in your opinion? Calling it "harm" is just a weasel word.
Basically the economy will not perform as well as it would remaining in,
Won't it? How would it perform if we stayed in?

These calculations are basically difference calculations - run the same model with one factor taken out and look at the difference, e.g. see here. It's a bit like saying that we can't know my weight in 20 years time, but we can say that I will be heavier in the case that I eat an extra two biscuits a day compared with the case where I don't.

......principally due to less trade (what exactly will happen will depend upon how Brexit is done).
Do you have any supporting evidence?

See here for an example

This will translate into less public spending and higher taxes, which will tend to hit the poorest hardest.

The poor have been being hit hardest for at least the last 5 years, by the present government, and we are still in the EU. How do you explain that?

The poor are always hit hardest by austerity, because they are poor and have very little in the way of buffers.

And, because we are deeply entwined with Europe, to extract ourselves will take a great lot of work by government, which will accordingly not be working on other things,
Er, you mean other things like hitting the poor hardest?

Are you assuming that everything that government does is bad?

Your speculation really doesn't stack up, does it? I take it you voted "remain".

I did,

Peter.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 05 Jul 2016, 11:44

Jeremy Corbyn has just won the election and is now PM. Indications are he's going to stick to his beliefs and has the ability to push through some major changes.

Financial markets are now in freefall etc...

Lots of pain forecasted, lots of uncertainty. He's getting rid of trident!

Most people never voted labour. Those that did surely weren't voting for chaos.

and so on...

Automaton · Post by **Automaton** » 05 Jul 2016, 13:25

Snail wrote: Most people never voted labour. Those that did surely weren't voting for chaos.

and so on...

We can categorically state that whoever wins an election in the UK will not have been voted for by 'most people'. Whatever you (or anyone else) votes, you have a 1 in 3 chance (roughly, but maybe even worse) of getting what you vote for. Little wonder the electorate feel a tad disempowered...

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 05 Jul 2016, 16:07

Yes, but the change promised wasnt so great so the grumbles were less. But a strongly socialist-minded labour party would be a party for change. And 'experts' and economic/strategic forecasts would be presented before (as already happened when JC became leader) and after. But, how many who voted remain and are now hoping a reversal/dilution of the eu decision will be made, would view such a victory in the same way.

Because, that's what a victory would mean: exactly the same points against the eu decision posted above by people who supposedly desire real change are just as applicable.

Change = pain.

Would those grumblers approve of dirty tactics (as has happened in the far-and-near past) used to deal with a corbyn-type before and after a successful election?

Automaton · Post by **Automaton** » 05 Jul 2016, 17:20

Snail wrote:Yes, but the change promised wasnt so great so the grumbles were less. But a strongly socialist-minded labour party would be a party for change. And 'experts' and economic/strategic forecasts would be presented before (as already happened when JC became leader) and after. But, how many who voted remain and are now hoping a reversal/dilution of the eu decision will be made, would view such a victory in the same way.

Because, that's what a victory would mean: exactly the same points against the eu decision posted above by people who supposedly desire real change are just as applicable.

Change = pain.

Would those grumblers approve of dirty tactics (as has happened in the far-and-near past) used to deal with a corbyn-type before and after a successful election?

A vote for leave or remain was still a vote for business as usual, and a vote for 'a strongly socialist-minded labour party' would be too. Corporations will be the beneficiaries, not us (regardless of 'in or out'). I wouldn't be surprised, for instance, if the UK now signs up to a TTIP type agreement with the US much more readily (even though the argument was that coming out of the EU would let us stand against it; lol, who honestly believed that??? Hilarious). Government does not represent the interests of the people, and we are, it seems, powerless to change that.

Pain? Oh, we're going to know about that alright.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 05 Jul 2016, 17:32

Yes, I agree mostly, if not all of it really. But democracy is one of the few things the masses possibly have as a tool.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 05 Jul 2016, 19:03

Could this be one of the REAL reasons why the right-wing wanted us to leave the EU?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -loopholes

Crackdown on tax loopholes announced by European commission

Measures to identify real ownership of companies and a law clamping down on offshore avoidance in the pipeline.

Transparency campaigners gave the proposals a mixed review. “We’re pleased to see the commission recognises that transparency is vital to end the system of secrecy which helps allow the corrupt to hide their stolen cash,” said Laure Brillaud, at Transparency International’s EU office.

But the campaign group said major loopholes remained, because registration requirements will only apply to trustees based in EU member states.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 05 Jul 2016, 21:26

johnhemming2 wrote:The way things work. The media report on what they think they should report on. Luckily there are other better more complete sources of information.

True nowdays, probably not so much 20 years ago I expect (at least, not for the average person interested in politics)

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 05 Jul 2016, 21:58

True that it used to be harder to get to the truth. However, it is still the case that people rarely try to find out the truth. They are normally happy reading sources that don't challenge their worldview.