Voting to remain

[root]

As much as I dislike Cameron I must say that in comparison to the Goves, Farages, Corbyns and Johnsons from the Leave campaign he's actually coming across as a rather reasoned and sensible person.

[titch juicy]

With the shift in polls to 'remain', the markets and pound have had a massive bounce. When they shifted to leave, the pound plummeted.

What more evidence do the leave voters need to see that there will be an almighty shock, a lasting shock for our economy, should we vote to leave?

[Blah Blah]

Quite Titch.

The problem LM is that immigration has been confused with economic decline. Most parts of the country have seen local populations fall over the past 40 years as people have moved to the SE (i.e where the jobs are). Housing has even been demolished in parts of the North because there is no-one to live in it!

And then if you take seaside areas like Thanet (where Farage stood) - you have areas long in economic decline having seen recent arrivals of the wrong sort of immigrants for locals liking.

So the immigration issue is nuanced and wrongly blamed for things that have nothing to do with it. Governments don't mind this too much though if it steers blame away from their failure to regenerate local economies.

For local economies to develop and exist of course, you need people of working age. It's no suprise to me that older people per se are backing leave whilst younger people are backing stay. Older generations are the ones who were promised cradle to grave state provision, whilst forgetting how that was going to be paid for. Younger people are used to the idea of having to pay for everything themselves, but resent shouldering the debt and responsibility for what they see as a pampered generation that had the best of everything, whilst they will have no such thing to look forward to. We really are a nation of two halves, in more ways than one.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> According the polls., Remain has pulled narrowly

> ahead in most and at worst drawn even. Most of

> the polling was done before Jo Cox's death so the

> surge for Remain can only be partly attributable

> to that.

>

> Louisa, what exactly do you think Cameron needed

> to address about immigration?

>

> Immigration is 100% an economic positive for the

> UK. EU immigrants make up 5% of the country.

> Loads of Brtis have left for Europe as well so the

> net population change is only a couple million

> people. They are in work and contributing tax as

> well as providing vital skills the country needs

> to continue growing and providing public services,

> particularly the NHS in which immigrants play a

> huge role.

>

> Most EU immigrants are in London, where most

> people are pro-Remain because they are best placed

> to see the advantages (economic and cultural) of

> EU migration. The supposedly lower skilled

> immigrants from Eastern Europe make up less than

> half of total EU immigrants and are too small a

> population to have had any widespread impact on

> most working class people.

>

> Continuing to pander to the misinformation and

> paranoia in my view only legitimizes EU

> immigration concerns driven by fear rather than

> reality. The lies about Turkey and Middle Eastern

> countries joining the EU as a means to stoke bad

> feeling is for me beyond the pale.

>

> The Leave campaign really should focus on

> articulating the advantages of leaving the EU and

> why its worth paying the economic price it will

> entail (I still have no clear vision of this).

I completely agree. Unfortunately for many, many years, the press have discussed immigration almost entirely in terms of 'a problem'. This narrative has been at best, left unchallenged by politicians, at worst, encouraged. It's convenient for everyone to have a scapegoat handy when needed and so certain sections of the press have been allowed to peddle misinformation, prejudice and insinuation about 'dangerous immigrants'. It becomes a truism in the end... How do you address the 'problem', what's your answer? The only person I've actually heard reject the premise and say 'there isn't a general problem' is Corbyn and not surprisingly, it's been met with derision.

[titch juicy]

a splendid piece from a real life, bona fide, flesh and bone expert

https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1293361974024537/

[Burbage]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What more evidence do the leave voters need to see

> that there will be an almighty shock, a lasting

> shock for our economy, should we vote to leave?

This may be a poor time to raise this, but the economic argument is, for most people, broadly irrelevant. Stock market jitters might be of interest to wealthy speculators, but they make little difference to anything real. Sure, the financial economy dwarfs the productive economy, and those who've bought financialised savings products will, once again, get stung. But that's not unusual or unexpected, and the EU decision won't make any future jitters go away. And sure, some real jobs rely on exchange rates and so on, but what, exactly are Britain's chief exports? Armaments, bits for nuclear plants, fuel oils and pearls. Hardly mainstream sources of employment. And as for the overall health of the economy, we've been told, for the best part of seven years, that we're in a surging recovery with rising employment and a dominant position in the 'knowledge economy'. For a few, that may be true. But in reality, the average (mean) income has been outstripping the average (median) income by three to one, which means most people have seen no improvement at all.

If people want anything, it's a say in how they're governed. They want to see an end to tax-dodging, employment conditions that are better than Uber's, a decent place to live for the forseeable, good schools and decent healthcare. None of which should have much to do with Europe. But when even the mildest attempt of Parliament to rein in transnational abuses is promptly rejected by both Treasury and HMRC, it's difficult to see whether voters have any say at all. This referendum is a chance to be heard. And that's why it's both dangerous and unpredictable.

For the only arguments being debated seem to be the economic ones. That's understandable if you understand the interests of the campaign funders. A major donor to the leave campaign is, for example, a big importer of cars from the far east; a major donor to the remain campaign is a large importer of European cars. Sometimes it's a little less clear - JCB, for example, competes with Hitachi and exports to Europe. But then, JCB has recently been fined for breaching carbon-trading rules, so it might just be harbouring a grudge. Either way, we've been left with a debate confined to the narrow interests of competing businesses, because that's who are paying the bills, which is hardly democratic or enlightening.

And that's the danger. Without a proper debate, voters may just see this as an opportunity to vote for change, and vote for that regardless. That's understandable - if the EU debate has taught us anything, it's that our leaders aren't fit to lead, our institutions as corrupt as we suspected and elections at the mercy of corporate donors and axe-grinders.

But what we should be voting for is a world with a little more peace in it. A bit more cooperation. A little joined-up thinking. And a little less competition. All most people want is a decent life and a future for their children, and that should be taken for granted. It shouldn't always have to be a fight. Compare and contrast, though, the actions of our government, that's slowly turning the screw on the low-paid, the disabled and tenants of social housing, and the EU, which has done more to protect our environment, human rights, working conditions and privacy, than would have suited the paymasters of any British government. That's not because the EU is particularly efficient or benevolent, but because it's much more expensive for corporations to bully the EU, whose politicians at least demand a decent price.

There is also the immigration debate, but that won't trouble the young. Quite the opposite - for though they can't hope to buy a house in London, or even most of England, there are 27 other countries they're allowed to live in, and immigration can work two ways. It may cost serious money to learn another language properly (our own schools and universities aren't great at that), but the EU makes studying abroad a real possibility and opportunities are good. It's only those stuck in a silly housing bubble of their own making that are trapped, and we can't blame the EU for that.

[robbin]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a splendid piece from a real life, bona fide,

> flesh and bone expert

>

> https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/vid

> eos/1293361974024537/

Ha ha ha ha! Seriously???!!! That's brilliant.

This man's entire career as a lecturer/professor in EU law rests on being an expert in and teaching EU law. If we no longer have EU law (and therefore no particular need for experts in it), do you not think he might be somewhat adversely affected (to put it very mildly) and therefore he has something of a vested interest?!!!

[titch juicy]

Just wstch it and you'll realise he addresses that point.

[root]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > a splendid piece from a real life, bona fide,

> > flesh and bone expert

> >

> >

> https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/vid

>

> > eos/1293361974024537/

>

> Ha ha ha ha! Seriously???!!! That's brilliant.

>

> This man's entire career as a lecturer/professor

> in EU law rests on being an expert in and teaching

> EU law. If we no longer have EU law (and

> therefore no particular need for experts in it),

> do you not think he might be somewhat adversely

> affected (to put it very mildly) and therefore he

> has something of a vested interest?!!!

Good point. I think you will find this official Brexit response addresses any reasons raised by the remain camp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4xBDpExjjY

[LondonMix]

The idea that economics of Brexit do not impact anyone but the wealthy simply isn't true. Many industries in the UK will be impacted by the trade tariffs. Even those industries not directly impacted will suffer from the reduction in economic activity, particularly the wider service economy. Because people employed in one sector spend money on goods and services in other sectors, no business is immune from significant turbulence.

Even for those that aren't employed another recession will have a negative impact on public services as it will bring about another round of austerity.

I do agree though that a vote against the status quo may simply be a protest vote by the disaffected. Many are interpreting the rise of outsiders in the US to a similar phenomena.

That's not to say there aren't reasons to vote Leave that might for some people trump these concerns but its not true to that most people will not be impacted economically by Brexit.

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What more evidence do the leave voters need to

> see

> > that there will be an almighty shock, a lasting

> > shock for our economy, should we vote to leave?

>

> This may be a poor time to raise this, but the

> economic argument is, for most people, broadly

> irrelevant. Stock market jitters might be of

> interest to wealthy speculators, but they make

> little difference to anything real. Sure, the

> financial economy dwarfs the productive economy,

> and those who've bought financialised savings

> products will, once again, get stung. But that's

> not unusual or unexpected, and the EU decision

> won't make any future jitters go away. And sure,

> some real jobs rely on exchange rates and so on,

> but what, exactly are Britain's chief exports?

> Armaments, bits for nuclear plants, fuel oils and

> pearls. Hardly mainstream sources of employment.

> And as for the overall health of the economy,

> we've been told, for the best part of seven years,

> that we're in a surging recovery with rising

> employment and a dominant position in the

> 'knowledge economy'. For a few, that may be true.

> But in reality, the average (mean) income has been

> outstripping the average (median) income by three

> to one, which means most people have seen no

> improvement at all.

>

> If people want anything, it's a say in how they're

> governed. They want to see an end to tax-dodging,

> employment conditions that are better than Uber's,

> a decent place to live for the forseeable, good

> schools and decent healthcare. None of which

> should have much to do with Europe. But when even

> the mildest attempt of Parliament to rein in

> transnational abuses is promptly rejected by both

> Treasury and HMRC, it's difficult to see whether

> voters have any say at all. This referendum is a

> chance to be heard. And that's why it's both

> dangerous and unpredictable.

>

> For the only arguments being debated seem to be

> the economic ones. That's understandable if you

> understand the interests of the campaign funders.

> A major donor to the leave campaign is, for

> example, a big importer of cars from the far east;

> a major donor to the remain campaign is a large

> importer of European cars. Sometimes it's a little

> less clear - JCB, for example, competes with

> Hitachi and exports to Europe. But then, JCB has

> recently been fined for breaching carbon-trading

> rules, so it might just be harbouring a grudge.

> Either way, we've been left with a debate confined

> to the narrow interests of competing businesses,

> because that's who are paying the bills, which is

> hardly democratic or enlightening.

>

> And that's the danger. Without a proper debate,

> voters may just see this as an opportunity to vote

> for change, and vote for that regardless. That's

> understandable - if the EU debate has taught us

> anything, it's that our leaders aren't fit to

> lead, our institutions as corrupt as we suspected

> and elections at the mercy of corporate donors and

> axe-grinders.

>

> But what we should be voting for is a world with a

> little more peace in it. A bit more cooperation. A

> little joined-up thinking. And a little less

> competition. All most people want is a decent life

> and a future for their children, and that should

> be taken for granted. It shouldn't always have to

> be a fight. Compare and contrast, though, the

> actions of our government, that's slowly turning

> the screw on the low-paid, the disabled and

> tenants of social housing, and the EU, which has

> done more to protect our environment, human

> rights, working conditions and privacy, than would

> have suited the paymasters of any British

> government. That's not because the EU is

> particularly efficient or benevolent, but because

> it's much more expensive for corporations to bully

> the EU, whose politicians at least demand a decent

> price.

>

> There is also the immigration debate, but that

> won't trouble the young. Quite the opposite - for

> though they can't hope to buy a house in London,

> or even most of England, there are 27 other

> countries they're allowed to live in, and

> immigration can work two ways. It may cost serious

> money to learn another language properly (our own

> schools and universities aren't great at that),

> but the EU makes studying abroad a real

> possibility and opportunities are good. It's only

> those stuck in a silly housing bubble of their own

> making that are trapped, and we can't blame the EU

> for that.

[titch juicy]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What more evidence do the leave voters need to

> see

> > that there will be an almighty shock, a lasting

> > shock for our economy, should we vote to leave?

>

> This may be a poor time to raise this, but the

> economic argument is, for most people, broadly

> irrelevant. Stock market jitters might be of

> interest to wealthy speculators, but they make

> little difference to anything real. Sure, the

> financial economy dwarfs the productive economy,

> and those who've bought financialised savings

> products will, once again, get stung. But that's

> not unusual or unexpected, and the EU decision

> won't make any future jitters go away. And sure,

> some real jobs rely on exchange rates and so on,

> but what, exactly are Britain's chief exports?

> Armaments, bits for nuclear plants, fuel oils and

> pearls. Hardly mainstream sources of employment.

> And as for the overall health of the economy,

> we've been told, for the best part of seven years,

> that we're in a surging recovery with rising

> employment and a dominant position in the

> 'knowledge economy'. For a few, that may be true.

> But in reality, the average (mean) income has been

> outstripping the average (median) income by three

> to one, which means most people have seen no

> improvement at all.

>

> If people want anything, it's a say in how they're

> governed. They want to see an end to tax-dodging,

> employment conditions that are better than Uber's,

> a decent place to live for the forseeable, good

> schools and decent healthcare. None of which

> should have much to do with Europe. But when even

> the mildest attempt of Parliament to rein in

> transnational abuses is promptly rejected by both

> Treasury and HMRC, it's difficult to see whether

> voters have any say at all. This referendum is a

> chance to be heard. And that's why it's both

> dangerous and unpredictable.

>

> For the only arguments being debated seem to be

> the economic ones. That's understandable if you

> understand the interests of the campaign funders.

> A major donor to the leave campaign is, for

> example, a big importer of cars from the far east;

> a major donor to the remain campaign is a large

> importer of European cars. Sometimes it's a little

> less clear - JCB, for example, competes with

> Hitachi and exports to Europe. But then, JCB has

> recently been fined for breaching carbon-trading

> rules, so it might just be harbouring a grudge.

> Either way, we've been left with a debate confined

> to the narrow interests of competing businesses,

> because that's who are paying the bills, which is

> hardly democratic or enlightening.

>

> And that's the danger. Without a proper debate,

> voters may just see this as an opportunity to vote

> for change, and vote for that regardless. That's

> understandable - if the EU debate has taught us

> anything, it's that our leaders aren't fit to

> lead, our institutions as corrupt as we suspected

> and elections at the mercy of corporate donors and

> axe-grinders.

>

> But what we should be voting for is a world with a

> little more peace in it. A bit more cooperation. A

> little joined-up thinking. And a little less

> competition. All most people want is a decent life

> and a future for their children, and that should

> be taken for granted. It shouldn't always have to

> be a fight. Compare and contrast, though, the

> actions of our government, that's slowly turning

> the screw on the low-paid, the disabled and

> tenants of social housing, and the EU, which has

> done more to protect our environment, human

> rights, working conditions and privacy, than would

> have suited the paymasters of any British

> government. That's not because the EU is

> particularly efficient or benevolent, but because

> it's much more expensive for corporations to bully

> the EU, whose politicians at least demand a decent

> price.

>

> There is also the immigration debate, but that

> won't trouble the young. Quite the opposite - for

> though they can't hope to buy a house in London,

> or even most of England, there are 27 other

> countries they're allowed to live in, and

> immigration can work two ways. It may cost serious

> money to learn another language properly (our own

> schools and universities aren't great at that),

> but the EU makes studying abroad a real

> possibility and opportunities are good. It's only

> those stuck in a silly housing bubble of their own

> making that are trapped, and we can't blame the EU

> for that.

But, financial services are a mainstream source of employment. And the big earners are a fraction of that quota.

[LondonMix]

Also, as uncomfortable a truth as it is-- higher earners contribute a huge amount of total tax revenue. When their income falls, the impact on tax revenue (and consequently public services) is dramatic.

[Blah Blah]

I find it incredulous that anyone would think what happens on the stock market doesn't affect us all, esp given the history of austerity that follows every single major crash. When markets crash, government tax revenue falls, which means spending on services falls.

[????]

1999/2000 no austerity post crash......but your general point is true.

[Azira]

messageRe: Voting to remain new

Posted by Burbage Today, 01:51PM

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What more evidence do the leave voters need to see

> that there will be an almighty shock, a lasting

> shock for our economy, should we vote to leave?

This may be a poor time to raise this, but the economic argument is, for most people, broadly irrelevant

I agree that many think like this now, but I'm fairly sure they will start finding it relevant if they can't retire because they value of their pension has plummeted, or they have lost their jobs.

[Rook]

Scare stories! Its really working for them isnt it!

markets will react to uncertainty but will recover - its complete guess work to say it will be years of economic doldrums if there is a vote to leave. In fact, markets can be counter intuitive. When the EZ introduced "the big bazooka" of more QE and cut in rates markets recovered very quickly on view that it was "positive action" to solve the economic issues

Alot of remainers think they are voting for the status quo but a week after the UK result Spain go to the polls and then Italy- where it looks certain that current governments have lost out to the centre right...who guess what...want a referendum. = uncertainty!

A remain vote for me will be opting for our inclusion in many years of further euro scepticism and the drag on the UK economy will be long and drawn out because the EU experiment hasnt worked. Id rather take positive action and vote Leave to help pioneer a new way to work with our european friends on a more effective level - including free trade without the threat of fines for not beign part of an exclusive club which favours only the wealthy

Anyway - time for a cup of tea :-)

[LondonMix]

Its not guesswork Rook.

As part of extricating itself from the EU, Britain will lose access to its current free trade agreement with the EU block as well as over 50 additional global trading partners that the EU has trade agreements with. Once Britain leaves the EU, it loses all of that as well as its rights as a WTO member as which is also under the EU. Equally important, UK banks will lose the ability to carry out business in Europe through the existing passporting arrangements. As a result, international banks will have to reduce jobs in London and increase their presence in either Frankfurt, Paris etc to continue operating. None of this is speculation.

The UK will have circa 2 years to extricate itself from the EU-- the referendum is like filing for divorce not actually getting divorced which of course takes much longer. During those two years the EU has publicly stated it will not negotiate a new trade agreement as it doesn't want discussions on the status of current EU citizens living in Britain and British citizens in the EU to be used as a bargaining tool. This is just one of a hundreds of legal issues that will need to be determined including proposed changes to UK law etc. The WTO has already confirmed the UK will need a brand new agreement, which will likely take the entire two year extrication period as its tantamount to a new ascension agreement.

The combination of the pending impact on the UK's trade and financial sector will 100% result in a decline in economic activity like for like. There is no way to dispute this.

Equally important is investment into the UK will be frozen for a time (12-24 months is most investors estimate) until the uncertainty about the new legal framework (potentially the new government), any impact on Scotland etc is understood. M&A activity is already down 70% like for like this year as a result of the referendum.

Vote Leave if you feel its worth it, but people who continue to insist that everything will be fine in a month literally haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with the economic facts. A typical trade agreement between willing parties typically takes 5 years to agree and that's with everyone in a good mood and keen to progress things quickly. The EU are in no such mood and France in particular has said as much.

The only thing in question is how large the negative impact on the economy will be (part of that depends on what the new laws and agreements are which of course no one knows nor will they know for a few years) not if the impact will be negative.

Also, the UK economy isn't negatively impacted by being part of the EU. Any malaise in the Eurozone will impact the UK whether it is in the EU or not as its the country's largest trading partner. However, EU membership doesn't amplify that in anyway as the UK is not in the Eurozone and is not responsible for Eurozone bailouts.

[titch juicy]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > a splendid piece from a real life, bona fide,

> > flesh and bone expert

> >

> >

> https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/vid

>

> > eos/1293361974024537/

>

> Ha ha ha ha! Seriously???!!! That's brilliant.

>

> This man's entire career as a lecturer/professor

> in EU law rests on being an expert in and teaching

> EU law. If we no longer have EU law (and

> therefore no particular need for experts in it),

> do you not think he might be somewhat adversely

> affected (to put it very mildly) and therefore he

> has something of a vested interest?!!!

Ummmmm, why would EU Law cease to exist if the UK leaves?

[LondonMix]

It won't automatically. Its far more complicated than that.

[Castillo]

London mix a vast majority of your posts are guess work ( not sure if you know or just cant see it !)

Either way let's not forget that you want to vote to remain part of something that up until now has surely been enjoying all of these benefits you list and oh.... It isn't working really is it

Do you think there is any area of the EU which could be improved ? or can't you see that either

Oh well might as well just remain part of it. Our power at the negotiation table has proven to be fruitless

Watch Brexit the Movie on YouTube. There is good argument to Leave

By the way I'm pro immigration before you come back with that. we cannot elect or remove the people who govern us - and that is undemocratic

[LondonMix]

I think there are lots of areas that can be improved. I also think that sovereignty for its own sake is a good enough reason to vote to leave as long as one accepts the cost of doing so.

Please be specific about which of my statements you believe to be guess work and I will respond specifically to your points.

[Castillo]

Will do - Can I do it after the football :-)

[Otta]

Can you all promise that on Friday this all stops whatever happens?

[Jules-and-Boo]

since we're all soooo good at predictions (especially years in advance) can we please get the half time score and time of first goal.... I could do with some positive reward for investment in Euro - albeit just the football bit....

[rendelharris]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> since we're all soooo good at predictions

> (especially years in advance) can we please get

> the half time score and time of first goal.... I

> could do with some positive reward for investment

> in Euro - albeit just the football bit....

1-0 to England half time, Sturridge scoring on 27 mins, Slovakia win 2-1. If I'm right you have to vote remain, deal?