Britain and the EU

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Tell you what. I'll put you down as a don't know with Graham.

Cheers.

Nice to be informed I'm now a don't know!

Graham_Devon

andrewf75 wrote: »

The main benefit as I see it is the economy. If the £3,000 per household per year estimate is correct that is huge. It will effectively knock a big chunk off our GDP.

But its dismissed as scaremongering and lets face it no-one knows for sure so no-one can categorically tell you what will happen. Its all guesswork.

But we need to be prepared for that £3,000 per year as a worst case scenario - or it could even be an underestimate. Its going to cost us something that is for sure.

Is this £3,000 loss another calculation that is weighted heavily though?

There are lots of examples floating around of jobs that will be lost if we leave the EU. What those examples DON'T take into account is these jobs will still need doing, just in a different way.

Sure, someone working today making sure we are in line with EU legislation wouldn't have a job. However, we'd need to employ someone to make sure we are in line with the legislation and frameworks setup under the new system.

So while people can indeed claim a job will be lost, we need to recognise that a new job will likely be created.

A lot of the figures I see banded around simply look at the loss in isolation.

On a similar vein to this I remember the tories announcing they had hired 3,000 new nurses. The whole speech was designed to imply there were 3,000 extra nurses, but no where did the speech say extra. What they had infact done is announced 3,000 new nurses had been employed.

That happens every year as nurses retire the other end they have to be replaced with people just having completed training. It's a very sly use of figures. It's not a lie and it is based on fact. But it's implying something which actually when you look at the figures, nothing has changed.

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

Not everything can be easily resolved especially when some members are dramatically more affected - there will always be fudges. Would it have been handled any better if there were 28 individual countries trying to solve the problem?
...

Don't they work out policies to deal with crises or situations before they arise? The displacement of 10m+ Syrian refugees does not happen overnight. Of course they can run DR type modelling scenarios. If I don't run Disaster Recovery scenario tests in the work context I would be booted out.

Well, yes they do, in certain areas : European stress testing of banks for example. But that's only after the whole GFC nearly brought the banking system to it's knees.

I think this whole European project is in many ways still in its infancy, and some politicians are using recent events to push their own European agenda. In a way, a reactive response will suit them. It worries me tbh.

michaels

wotsthat wrote: »

You've probably been thinking about these things for years and have a reasonable idea of how you'll vote already. It's not as if we were disinterested and waiting for the campaigns to be launched before impartially weighing up the evidence presented.

I'll be impressed if either side even manages to present old arguments in new and innovative ways. I'll be amazed to hear anything I've not heard before.

Tell you what. I'll put you down as a don't know with Graham.

EU membership

There is a loss of democratic accountability that whilst the size of which is fairly clear now, how large it will be in the future is unknown and possibly unknowable.

Set against which there is probably an economic benefit, the size of any loss from leaving can probably be estimated but the information available is so contradictory that again reaching a conclusion is vey unlikely.

Thus we are looking at a trade off between financial and non-financial factors both of unknown magnitude over a very long time frame alongside the normal consideration of whether to consider personal/family costs and benefits or some sort of idea of 'National benefit.

I would suggest than anyone who has a clue what the best optin is either weights one of these factors particuarly highly compared to another or hasn't really thought about it.

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nice to be informed I'm now a don't know!

Well...yesterday at 6.03 PM you were voting No.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And this sums up, for me, the overarching reason I will be voting out.

56 minutes later you turned into a floater.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I could be persuaded to vote to remain in Europe

No wonder wotsthat is confused.

Generali

mayonnaise wrote: »

Well...yesterday at 6.03 PM you were voting No.

56 minutes later you turned into a floater.

No wonder wotsthat is confused.

Graham_Devon is Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my five pounds.

mayonnaise

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I wanted to add a poll but can't figure out how but, where do you stand?

You can still add it, go to 'thread tools' and select 'add a poll'.
I like polls.

wotsthat

michaels wrote: »

Thus we are looking at a trade off between financial and non-financial factors both of unknown magnitude over a very long time frame alongside the normal consideration of whether to consider personal/family costs and benefits or some sort of idea of 'National benefit.

I don't know why the idea is being developed that although we might be better off financially there has to be a trade off against non-financial factors. Almost as if stay voters are just about the money and don't care about the 'obvious' misery it'll cause.

michaels wrote: »

I would suggest than anyone who has a clue what the best optin is either weights one of these factors particuarly highly compared to another or hasn't really thought about it.

That's the same for any decision. What are the issues? Which are you most bothered about. Which are you willing to compromise on?

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

Well...yesterday at 6.03 PM you were voting No.

56 minutes later you turned into a floater.

No wonder wotsthat is confused.

It's quite simple really.

I intend to vote no. However, I could be persuaded to change my mind.

Doesn't exactly make me a floating voter now does it and it's not really all that hard to fathom out. All I'm doing is stating I'm not a die hard no voter regardless of the arguments presented. If that makes me Jeremy Corbyn, so be it.

If decent arguments are put forward with decent reasons showing me what we will definately lose as citizens, not as a business (and cannot sort out ourselves) I may be persuaded to vote to stay in.

As it stands, I've asked about 6 times on this thread alone for one of these things. No one has put anything forward. So I remain a no voter.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't know why the idea is being developed that although we might be better off financially there has to be a trade off against non-financial factors. Almost as if stay voters are just about the money and don't care about the 'obvious' misery it'll cause.

That appears to be the premise though.

Even the campaign to stay in the EU is 95% about money and business.

All this does not effect me personally. I'm not a business, and nothing I, or my family does for that matter relies on ties with the EU.

So if we come out of the EU, what's so negative for me, my family and thousands like us? Will I lose some human rights I take for granted? Will my kids suffer a worse education? Will I find I have to pay huge sums to drive on the roads? Will the power go out? Will quality of life fall drastically? Is my pension at risk? Will all the banks around me suddenly shut up shop? Will I be able to buy a German, French or Italian car? Will I still be able to enjoy a croissant every now and again? (that could be a deal breaker).

I'm honestly not all that concerned about a multinational company losing 0.098% of their annual multi millions of pounds in profit.

We keep being told it will be a distaster to leave the EU. I just want to know what that disaster entails....and if it's not being allowed to import foodstuffs or German beer I want to know about it....that, afterall, will be a disaster.