[Closed] Does anyone care what Barrack says?

By steriotyping and underestimating your opponents in any election (or indeed any situation) is often a fatal error.

Its posts that like that that make me consider your posts as satirical genius rather than the alternative.

Have you actually read it Jamba? Not exactly positive for either side, particularly the brexsists and the section on trade deals is particularly relevant to the last few comments on this thread about whether free trade agreements are likely.

JY sense of humour failure, I even put a winky thing-a-me-bob on to help everyone out ?

@jimw yes I have now Inwas just thanking you for PSA as I hadn't seen it. I am very open to what factcheck have to say, as posted I gave them a few quid with an open mind as what they may find. I strongly believe our massive trade deficit with the EU will be very much in our favour, the EU ismpretty sick economically at the moment and its getting worse - all plays into our hands imho.

With everything going so well in Europe, we have a far right candidate winning a landslide in the first round of their Presdential election eliminating the mInstream parties. He has hinted he may dissove Parliament if he wins the second round this forcing an early election. Add this to FN in France who look quite likely to eliminate Hollande/PS from next years Presidential election.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/austrian-far-right-partys-triumph-presidential-poll-turmoil-norbert-hofer ]Austrian Presidential Election[/url]

Apologies if this has been posted. Very funny, however all of the ECHR's "good bits" can be replicated in a domestic bill but with the broken bits fixed and without a court superior to our own. All voted on by ojr Parliament and subject to change if a future Parliament of any persuasion decides is necessary

I strongly believe our massive trade deficit with the EU will be very much in our favour, the EU ismpretty sick economically at the moment and its getting worse - all plays into our hands imho.

That is the reality, everyone who can do maths knows this*, only Brexiters think al this favours us
Its not a rationally well founded view its just misguided bullish posturing,
* without us they are harmed without them we are ****ed

€'s JY, look at the €'s - even the trade deficit with Germany alone will tell you how that discussion will go. You are confusing yourself with percentages and ignoring my point that Europe are on their knees economically and starring into the abyss with Greece and the migrant crises. The US doesn't want us to Leave as the whole EU could implode.

You are confusing yourself with percentages

My mistake 44 % is not considerably bigger than the 3% I feel so foolish now that i was so easily misled and confused. Forgive me

😆

You are confusing yourself with percentages and ignoring my point that

Neither Euopre nor the UK will recover if we present the wrong reasons for the weak economic environment, the fundamental cause is excess leverage - and the fact that we are now in a balance sheet rather than a normal recession - and hence the current policy mix based on unorthodox monetary policy won't work whatever Draghi pretends. That's the given. None of this is unique to Europe or the UK or even US, Japan and parts of Asia where the same patterns are evident albeit with regional variations.

Of course, Europe does have the added problem of a flawed currency project at its heart and the lack of fiscal union. That exacerbates other issues and makes structural adjustments in deficit countries appalling in terms of wages and unemployment. We are not part of that folly nor will we be. Well done Gordie and Dave.

So let's examine this abyss based in Greece and the migrants as causes and asses the magnitude. I will pass that over for fun at this point

1. Since we like percentages, what is the scale of the Greek issue in relation to the Eu economy? How has this changed?
2. What are the exposures to Greek debt now, how have they changed and who is at risk? Again quantifiable measures of risk would be helpful?
3. From 1 and 2 does Greece represent a systemic risk to the rest of the EU including the UK?
4. What is the scale of the migrant issue, where are the main flows from and why are they coming?
5. Leaving aside the moral and legal obligations that we have, from a purely economic perspective what is the impact on the EU and on the countries of origin?

An easy 5 for starters - then we can get back to the real problems in Europe.

As as supporter of the EU who has benefited greatly from the free movement of goods and labour I'm frustrated by exactly the same things as Jamby.

The EU has become a lobby-sensitive bureaucratic juggernaut thundering through the quiet lanes of Europe.

It is a sham of democracy with very little regard for the best interests of its citizens. The idea was a level playing field but the rules are such that countries have been given tools to create unfair advantage. The advantage going to the country with the lowest company taxes, the lowest level of investment in the welfare state, the most unfavourable conditions for workers, the lowest wages, the least investment in the future... .

The advantage going to the country with the lowest company taxes, the lowest level of investment in the welfare state, the most unfavourable conditions for workers, the lowest wages, the least investment in the future..

Good points Ed, but scrapping it or reforming it aren't options on the ballot.

Apologies if this has been posted. Very funny, however all of the ECHR's "good bits" can be replicated in a domestic bill but with the broken bits fixed and without a court superior to our own. All voted on by ojr Parliament and subject to change if a future Parliament of any persuasion decides is necessary

But I don't want a bunch of politicians changing what are deemed to be fundamental human rights - what broken bits are there in the convention?

As as supporter of EU freedoms who has benefited greatly from the free movement of goods and labour I'm frustrated by exactly the same things as Jamby.

+1 - yes, it's flawed in various ways

It is a sham of democracy

Ok

with very little regard for the best interests of its citizens.

Not so OK - you cannot simply ignore the very great benefits that have accurd to citizens eg safety, peace, basic rights, consumer protection etc.

The advantage going to the country with the lowest company taxes, the lowest level of investment in the welfare state, the most unfavourable conditions for workers, the lowest wages, the least investment in the future... .

Pretty much all falsifiable....

It would be nice if it were politicians changing human rights but in fact it's the non-elected commission.The main broken bit is that the elected representatives can be over ridden by the commission, and eurocrats have more real power than euro MPs. I doubt Brits would be happy if the Lords ruled the roost, only had to consult parliament and could override if they wished. The commission has to consult interested bodies (lobbies) before parliament so you have laws created by lobbies that parliament can do no more than rubber stamp.

Mm yes but the commission has no real power does it, because if they weren't too far the countries would just leave, or ignore them. Not quite the same as a government.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/25/ttip-vote-brexit-barack-obama-leave-eu-trade-deal ]Why TTIP isn't a good reason for Brexit[/url]

In terms of protecting citizens from pollution the Commission has rarely acted in the interests of public health and often followed the interests of lobbies.

Take car pollution. Public health experts are unanimous in attributing excess deaths to NOX and there is increasing evidence to say that diesel soot is carcinogenic. In Tokyo they simply banned diesel engines. But in Europe the car lobby proposed a set of standards and testing procedures that meant they could go on building and selling filthy diesel engines that poison us. If they had a testing procedure and standards that really protected public health there wouldn't be a diesel vehicle left on the road.

Here's my NOX and CO2 test procedure:

Cycle 1: vehicle at its maximum speed on an autobahn.
Cycle 2: cold start and driven from Bordeaux Merignac to Bordeaux Centre via Pessac by people chosen at random from the electoral register.

My soot test: A 1m3 bag is filled with exhaust gas with the engine under full load at 3000rpm. The whole contents of the bag are weighed and analysed.

Every big heavy Merc, Audi and BMW would produce horrific figures but a petrol Twingo would be fine (if you accept that the transition to electric vehicles and the clean production of electricity to charge them is going to take a few years and petrol cars are the least unhealthy solution till then).

How many years have doctors been telling the world (and the EU) that bisphenol A should be banned in food packaging? And yet the Commission has yielded to lobby pressure to go on poisoning us.

Frank Fields just spoke for Vote Leave. He referred to how Labour has lost 4m votes since the Blair peak and how the party has failed to engage with those traditional Labour voters worried about immigration. He also stated it was quite negative for Labour to campaign for the EU in order to protect workers rights as its an admission of failure. He of course pointed out that in every Parliamentary vote he can recall Corbyn, like him, has voted "against" EU related legislation.

@Edukator 🙂

See my post about VW, compensation agreed in the US already, in Europe with Germany's vested interest nothing yet - strange eh ?

it's the non-elected commission.The main broken bit is that the elected representatives can be over ridden by the commission, and eurocrats have more real power than euro MPs.

Whilst the European model does have some democratic flaws - largely as it wants to make sure all countries are represented all of that is overstatement to the point of lies

The commission, nominated by the elected leaders of each country, has to be approved by the MEP's who are democratically elected and also by the leaders of the countries - simple majority from both. Whilst its possible to criticise this model it is nothing like the lords which is just political patronage and birth right. Its also a bit rich for the UK to have lords and lecture others on democracy.

Secondly the commission proposes laws but the MEPS must pass the laws- separation of the executive form the legislature. Given this I am unsure as to what the claims of "over ridden" and "more power" actually mean in concrete terms - could you be explicit and cite examples?

a Commission proposal only becomes
an EU law when it attracts the support of two
majorities. It needs both a majority in the Council,
representing at least 55% of EU countries and
65% of the EU population, and a majority in the
Parliament.

I doubt Brits would be happy if the Lords ruled the roost, only had to consult parliament and could override if they wished

Its so hard to have a factual debate on this

To be clear the EU model is a fudge in places, but nowhere near as bad as the Uk's system and the claims if the anti lot are way greater than the reality of the problem. in many cases they are not even an accurate description of how it operates never mind being reasonable criticism.

in Europe with Germany's vested interest nothing yet - strange eh ?

@tmh we certainly both agree on excess leverage, personal and government especially.

A concrete example Junkyard.

Do some research yourself on Bisphenol A and make up your own mind whether it has anything to do with low male sperm count and various ailments.

The research convinced the French government and many Euro Mps, the majority even. In a democratic world there's every chance it would have been banned. But the lobby sensitive Commission is in favour of Bisphenol A and while that remains the case there can be no political debate by Euro Mps because the Commission decides what can be debated.

[url= http://www.foodqualitynews.com/Industry-news/French-ban-on-BPA-challenged-after-EFSA-opinion ]A government does the right thing for public health and gets attacked.[/url]

Has this bindun?
[img] ?oh=068c5e33936ed6a2756c26dbd1a4f5d7&oe=57A9C59F[/img]

Power resides with those that promulgate laws that is the Commission, it is the executive, but is answerable to the Council of Ministers and the Parliament.

The Commission has no role in the ECHR, which is a charter under the auspices of the European Council which is then interpreted the court.

I'm going raise this again as it rarely gets mentioned, aside from the obvious economic and political reasons for remaining in Europe, for me the most powerful reason to stay in is about the future and our place in it. Whether we like it or not, save for any catastrophes, the world is on a path towards more integration, not less. Globalisation is moving from an economic/trade concept, to something more social, cultural and political. Nation states will probably become less important, and will cede power and influence to trade blocs, federated super-states, and other trans-national alliances and groups. So given all this, are we really going to swim against the tide and isolate ourselves from our closest neighbours? It'd be like Manchester declaring itself an independent nation state. What's the point?

The latest EU strop concerning France is the banning of toxic pesticides used to treat cherries and other fruits. France has banned the poison and now has various countries and industrialists lobbying the Commission (not the parliament) to put an end to France's ban.

[url= http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-agriculture-dimethoate-idUSKCN0X925C ]A European Commission spokesman said the Commission would analyze the report and it would be debated at a closed-door meeting of experts representing the 28 EU member states on Friday. [/url]

Note the lobby-sensitive Commission will debate the issue not the parliament and if the Commission decides there is no problem the parliament will never get to debate it. So who has the final word, parliament or Commission? The Commission.

Wrecker, are you suggesting the UK (although a dog in a UJ t-shirt is frequently a representation of England) is Obama's poodle?

😉

Has this been done? I laughed.

[url= http://gu.com/p/4cpnq/sbl ]What has the European convention on human rights ever done for us?[/url]

so basically the fact they don't do what France wants show that what you said was true.

WTF does "lobby sensitive" mean - the passive shitty slurs of the antis plunge new depths.

So they debated it behind closed doors - how is that meant to prove your claim?

As for the second one france banned something, the EU did not, other EU manufacturers appealed to the EU about this - what point is this meant to prove?

Can you state a case where the claim you have made can be shown

Yes the EU and local govt often disagree. Hardly news, what you have shown, not what you claimed.

They don't do what is right and good and in the interst of European citizens. The examples I gave are ones I've ssen on the news where the commission is clearly not acting in the interests of citizens but instead in favour of the corporate world.

Lobby-sensitive means that asking the likes of BASF, BMW and Monsanto for their views is part of the Commissions remit. Lobbyists (my nephew amongst them) are paid to influence the Commission to act in their interests. The Commission has a record of going with these interests so I refer to them as "lobby sensitve". It's not a slur it's the way the system works.

The fact the debate is behind closed doors has nothing to do with my claim (though it means we'll never know how a decision was reached and who argued which way which is an improtant part of the democratic process). My claim is that the decision will not be made democratically by the parliament because it won't be put to parliament and even if it were the Commission could use its vote to cancel out a parliament decision as both must vote the same way for anything to be passed.

The pesticide one shows that a government is answerable to the Commission not the parliament and therefore any decision taken will be one taken by bureaucrats and lobbyists rather than an elected parliament.

I have given you two cases where my claim is substantiated.

On the chocolate thing, it wasn't really a victory for the average UK citizen, it was a victory for the UK chocolate manufacturing lobby. Palm oil used to be banned in chocolate in Europe, now manufacturers can add palm oil and still call it chocolate (that was the real debate: palm oil or no palm oil, even if the industry talked about "other vegetable fats"). Really, honestly are you pleased that the lobby-influenced Commission allowed chocolate to be made with palm oil? And allows it to be wrapped in plastic containing bisphenol A? Because the manufacturers wanted to maintain a competitive advantage despite the health risks and their lobbyists got what they wanted.

dazh, I don't think the 'economic' benefits of being in Europe are as clear cut as you suggest. Over the last decade or two our trade with the US has grown and our trade with the EU has shrunk, and we don't even have a trade deal with the US. Neither does the EU for that matter. Also 80% of the worlds population lives in the developing countries, so our trading future doesn't lie with the EU either. Yes, more integration and partnering is good, but not necessarily with the EU, and we don't have to give up our 'sovereignty' to unelected bureaucrats. It just feels like too much compromise and erosion of control over our own destiny.

We have zero influence in the EU, we are but one vote, and voting in the EU is like the Eurovision Song Contest so we stand no chance to influence.

Perhaps our influence is diminished by electing people like UKIP to represent us.

@dazh - there is no doubt in my mind that a properly constructed and operated European Economic Community is what would be best. However, we don't have that any longer (ever ?) and what we do have is going faster and faster in the wrong direction. The other major players want that other direction. That, in a nutshell is the problem.

I'll keep repeating it but even the Remain campaigners talk about the need for a reformed EU but I will reform away from what they want and not towards

I didn't quote it before but Frank Field's comments about UKIP have been picked up by the press, he says those pose a significant threat to Labour as the Labour Party has failed to grasp and respond to immigration as a concern to many of its core voters. He made the comments in his Vote Leave speech today and they are highly

I have given you two cases where my claim is substantiated.

80% might live in the developing world but they neither need nor can pay for much of what we sell to Europe . Yu state that fact as if it means we can swap all our EU trade to them, we cannot and so its a pointless "fact".

We have zero influence in the EU, we are but one vote

I reckon most people reading this forum will understand, Junkyard.

[url= http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-eu#.Vx9oAUet-FU ]Wobbliscott has it about right on current trade including services[/url]

[url= http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/your-business/61274/biggest-trends-in-british-trade ]British trade[/url]

I am sure they will understand what you are doing and why you are doing it.

Yes what he said was correct but the conclusion he tried to suggest - we can somehow just swap trade to the rest of the world as they are 80% of the worlds population is simplistic, disingenuous and entirely without foundation- we could trade with them now but chose Europe for some reason being enough to convince anyone but the committed Brexiter.

What am I doing and why am I doing it? Please tell.

I'm being objective about the EU but still want Britain to remain in, which even to me defies reason so if you can work out a logic to it I'm interested, Junkyard.

I'm being objective about the EU but still want Britain to remain in, which even to me defies reason

Nothing unreasonable about it.

The concept is good bit the execution is flawed, so what do we do? We try and change it. Can't do that if we leave.

We try and change it. Can't do that if we leave.

If we Leave the EU could well change fundamentally, not least the prospect it may well disintegrate. That's the sort of thing which frightens the IMF and the US

We've tried and failed

You give up on everything that easily Jam?

Your motto is 'Quit when it gets tough' is it? Glad I don't work with you 🙂

🙂

We've tried repeatedly, we've even stayed out of their disasters such as Schengen and the euro but they have ploughed on regardless.

We won't get another Referendum for another 40 years if ever, IMO we have to cease this opportunity to get out now.

Seize.

As I said, I'm glad I don't work with you, and I'm even more glad I'm not married to you!

The EU has changed a lot since it started. It's going to continue to change. So why give up now? It's just out and out pessimism, AT BEST. At worst it's xenophobia and ignorance.

That Guardian article in Lifer's link makes interesting reading.

Obama's/America's reasons for wanting the UK to remain have nothing to do with our best interests, but rather they see the UK as a useful tool to promote TTIP and other American corporate interests in the EU.

If the UK votes 'leave', hopefully DC will call an election (to piss off Boris) and we can change our current disfunctional national government for one that's vaguely competent (a girl can dream...).

It just feels like too much compromise and erosion of control over our own destiny.

This is the type of craziness I keep hearing from people. So despite all and sundry telling you that the economic effects will be disastrous, you're willing to risk all that for a vague feeling that you're not in control of your destiny?

They obviously exercise a great deal more influence over Dave than you or I

If we Leave the EU could well change fundamentally, not least the prospect it may well disintegrate. That's the sort of thing which frightens the IMF and the US

I assume the IMF and the US have said this then jamby as you would not be just making it up now would you 🙄

Do you ever watch the news, Junky ? 😉

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/02/imf-officials-concerned-brexit-vote-will-put-greek-bailout-at-risk-says-wikileaks ]IMF, brexit and greek bailout - wikileaks[/url]

Yes and I understand what it means as well

they think the EU will focus on the UK leaving during the vote and tae their eye of the Greece ball

THat is true and it is not what was claimed nor does it say they re "frightened".

Edukator - so are all the infinitives (that companies often complain about) regarding workers rights in the interests of citizens or corporates as you seem to be suggesting?

We have not tried the change the core issue - the € project. We do not want to be a part of the central core which, by design, has to move to fiscal union and therefore greater political union. We are merely spectators to that clustersf@ck. We are simple having to decide how we want to interact with this core - as members of the outer circle or a country completely outside. We have safeguarded key issues of important such as the €, Schengen etc and seem to be in pretty good shape to me. I would be very arrogant of us to be imposing change on things that are not relevant to us.

A disintegration of the EU is not in anyone's interest Jambas

[url= http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2016/04/07/2320301-lagarde-un-brexit-serait-un-saut-dans-l-inconnu.html ]Christine lagarde reclons that Britain leaving would be a dangerous jump into the unknown.[/url] She goes on to mention the Dutch Euro-skeptic vote so it's clear where her concerns lie. A "dangerous jump into the unknown" suggests she considers it something frightening.

I'll give you a concrete example of how workers rights are pulled down to the lowest levels in Europe, THT.

A local aerospace subcontractor found he was being undercut by companies in other European countries where the cost of labour was lower because of:

lower wages
lower social security payments
lower redundancy payments
more flexible working hours
longer working hours
lower taxes

He closed his business and moved all of his machines to Spain, even some of his workers went with him as they were prepared to accept the conditions rather than lose their jobs.

So a dozen or so well-paid workers with excellent working conditions, health benefits and pensions either lost their jobs or ended up worse off.

So what happens when you Whistleblow on industrial scale tax avoidance via cushy deals signed off by the government of Luxembourg ? Deals that have now been investigated and declared illegal with more than €300m of fines and payments. You get accused of a crime and taken to court of course

[url= https://news.vice.com/article/the-whistleblowers-behind-the-luxleaks-scandal-are-on-trial-in-luxembourg ]Vicenews story[/url]

And the European Commission are working on even more new laws to ensure corporate privacy with even more punishments for whistle blowers according to Europe 1 radio sometime last week.

Nice anecdotes. But just look at eg economic performance and job numbers or lack of them in the countries you quote. You will simply see then how ridiculous your earlier claims are.

Or perhaps we can just blame the horrendous Spanish employment data on nasty foreign people invading ther domestic jobs market 😯

Now take a look at the trend in French jobs over the last 30 years. The Spanish employment data is lousy but really isn't any worse now than when I was a "nasty foreign" person working there in the late 80s. We are all being dragged down to the lowest levels of worker rights and remuneration in Europe.

Take a look at Germany where mini-jobs and student jobs are dragging ever larger numbers into the category of working poor. (Edit: some of the working poor in Germany are Spanish)

No we are not. You are making things up now.

Nope, I'm just quoting what I've read:

[url= http://www.fr-online.de/arbeit---soziales/armut-in-deutschland-so-viele-arme-wie-noch-nie,1473632,29904640.html ]Never so many working poor in Germany[/url]

[url= http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-jobs-idUSTRE8170P120120208 ]Something easier to read from Reuters[/url] (which I haven't read beyond the headline but will no doubt confirm). Now I've read it it's out of date as they have aminimum wage except they don't have a minimum wage because of the mini jobs law.

A disintegration of the EU is not in anyone's interest Jambas

@molgrips did I propose and not notice I thought we where just posting on a forum ? Sounds like a metaphor for the EU, join a common market get political union.

@Edukator what's ironic (for the stw crowd) is you are living in the sort of "left wing paradise" many stw-ers pine for and you are pro-Leave as is my French wife.

I'm pro-remain (as I've stated twice on this thread), you'll be happy to hear I don't have a vote. 🙂

There's a lot wrong with the EU but I agree with Molgrips when he says it's better to try and change it from within than leave. Given the rise of the anti-Europe parties in so many countries I think that Britain leaving would be the beginning of the end but it won't happen. The polls say it won't happen and a significant amount of my own money says it won't happen. If I'm wrong feel free to laugh very loud and bump this thread to rub my nose in it.

I'm pro-remain (as I've stated twice on this thread)

Emulsifier.

Dazh, it's not a crazy feeling that we're not in control of our own destiny in the EU. We're not in many areas. And the intentions of the EU is clear, ever closer union towards effectively a United States of Europe. Some might feel ok and comfortable with that, but not me. No thank you. We have enough trouble trying to hold our own MPs to account. We've got no chance with the MEPs. Whilst we remain in the EU there are limitations imposed on us as to how we can trade with non-EU countries, so given what I said before if we cut our ties we are free to go after the far more significant trade on offer with non-EU countries over the coming decades.

This concept of remaining in for some sentimental reason doesn't appeal. We need to look at this objectively. The inners case for EU membership benefits for security, defence, trade have been proved to be overstated I think, the case around immigration is largely irrelevant as we've never been in Shengen, and bloated MEPs living the life of fine dining, vintage wine, globetrotting on private jets and paying a favourable income tax rate of only 21%, all at the expense of the EU taxpayers makes our own MPs expenses scandal look like some petty pilfering. The last point may be somewhat exaggerated for effect, but still the point is valid, especially on the preferential income tax rate.

Go on, I'm still undecided believe it or not, I understand the issue around the big risks and unknowns around leaving and it is a risk, so in reality despite what I've said and am testing the brexit argument and trying to break down the points for brexit, but am struggling to be fair, I'm hoping the remain camp will suddenly get into another gear. But still I'm not up for remaining for sentimentality or some notion that the are our friends and neighbours. They don't look on us in the same way. We've never really been on the same page as our European friends, we just seem to somehow be fundamentally different in an unreconcilable way. So we either conform and remain, or continue on our own terms in our own way without them. The big question is have we actually benefitted from being in the EU? We know for sure we have definately benefitted from remaining out of the Euro.

the intentions of the EU is clear, ever closer union towards effectively a United States of Europe.

The big question is have we actually benefitted from being in the EU?

I think we have

I think many feel as you do and its hard to be passionately pro the EU.
That said nothing would make me cross the lobbies with the Brext lot them seem to be largely made up of loons with farcical arguments.

Do as we say and not as we do ...

[i]James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, warned the free movement of citizens around the EU was “in conflict” with the need to protect security.[/i]

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/open-borders-allow-isil-sleeper-cells-into-europe-and-uk--capabl/ ]Link[/url]

I'm pro-remain (as I've stated twice on this thread), you'll be happy to hear I don't have a vote.

I think many feel as you do and its hard to be passionately pro the EU.
That said nothing would make me cross the lobbies with the Brext lot them seem to be largely made up of loons with farcical arguments.

Of course there hae been benefits to being in the EU but have those benefits been worth the financial and non-financial cost and more importantly will those or other benefits continue to acrue into the future and what will future the costs look like ?

How does "yes" grab you?

Jambas on what have the [s]Romans[/s] Eu ever done for us and it's cost, I would suggest a quick read of Martin Wolfe in yesterday's FT. For starters

Trade with EU members has increased 55% at a fiscal cost equivalent to a mere 0.5% of GDP. A pretty good (!) trade by any standards. That's the starter for 10.......

This concept of remaining in for some sentimental reason doesn't appeal.

I can assure you I have no sentimental attachment to the EU. But the practical and logical reasons for remaining are obvious. I'm not going to list them, that's been done ad infinitum, but what I would say is that following WW2, we've had 70 years of peace and prosperity which is due largely to an approach which favours cooperation with our closest neighbours rather than competing and fighting with them. The EU is the central part of that post-war society settlement which I have no wish to see it dismantled because of irrelevant and small fry issues. Like I said, the future is going to be about less well defined natiional identities, boundaries, cultures and economics. It's already happening now, and we benefit from it in a multitude of ways so stepping outside of that and isolating ourselves is an idiotic move.

New thread title?

Does anyone care what the OECD says?

1. Uncertainty already having a negative impact
2. Economic policy uncertainty also increasing

ok obvious so far

3. A vote for Brexit would lead to considerable uncertainty in the near term, further lifting risk premia and hurting confidence
4. Brexit would generate a large negative shock to the UK economy, which would spill over to other European countries
5. Immigrants, particularly from other EU countries, have boosted GDP growth significantly in the UK

Even more bearish than the Treasury since they see the negative impacts affecting us much sooner.

Bloody cheek 😉

This thread should just be joined onto end of on of the other EU threads - many other forums do that sort of thing

OECD analysis assumes no new trade deals with anyone ! Also shows after inital "shock" there is no difference. Assumptions assumptions. Dip in GDP imo has zero to do with Referendum. OECD like other organisations is afraid EUnwill fall apart if we leave, thats no reason for us to go down with the ship.

Controlled immigration would have delieverd greater benefits imho, it's worked fabulously well for the US, Canada and Australia

well we can continue to ignore what is an impressive list of organisations and professional bodies....

This thread should just be joined onto end of on of the other EU threads - many other forums do that sort of thing

Controlled immigration would have delieverd greater benefits imho, it's worked fabulously well for the US, Canada and Australia

But if all else fails head to route one lie and scare. It's worked (many) millions of times before

following WW2, we've had 70 years of peace and prosperity which is due [s]largely to an approach which favours cooperation with our closest neighbours rather than competing and fighting with them[/s]

EU foreign policy has been a disaster be that selling warships to Russia, Ukraine/Crimea or the handling of the migrant crises

EU policies have lead to the rise of the far right in France and in Austria and the creationnof UKIP a party now polling more votes than Labour have lost since the Blair heyday

well we can continue to ignore what is an impressive list of organisations and professional bodies

Pick up your phone!!

@mike a very significant portion of the "refugees" from Syria are ****stanis and Bangladeshis, likewise from Libyabthey are from sub-saharan Africa. This could have been dealt with via tye UK approach aid / taking genuine refugees from camps vetted by the eu. Shegen and EU countries ignoring Dublin agreement have kead to,illegal passage throughout the eu. Geneva Convention says you must claim asylum in the first safe country you come to

In the longer term, it calculates that more restrictive trading arrangements with the EU alongside less competition, lower foreign direct investment and fewer skilled immigrants, would hit gross domestic product by a central estimate of 5 per cent, slightly less than the Treasury’s 6.2 per cent figure.

-5% seems like a difference to me!! albeit less than the Treasury version

Geneva Convention says you must claim asylum in the first safe country you come to

Jamba you're beginning to sound like JHJ. It's all a conspiracy between the OECD, IMF, EU, US, UK Govt etc. The ZMs are conspiring against the little people to keep us all in our place, and the only people standing up to them are visionary rebels like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and George Galloway 😀

BTW, don't you live in France?