Brexit
- Thread starter corona
- Start date
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
The arguments for leave are fairly ridiculous. UK could not renegotiate trade deals with EU without joining Schengen, and the only reason we have some control of our EU facing borders is because we rejected Schengen. Kinda funny because the leave campaign are advertising better migration control and the possibility of EU trade, but they're mutually exclusive.
40% UK exports go to EU, which is a massive majority. EU wouldn't be keen to allow UK just to remain a part of free trade zone, they would need to be strict to prevent nationalism. Already far right in France and Austria (who btw only narowly avoided electing a far right party in the past weeks) have been advocating leaving the EU. A successful Brexit could destabilise the Union, so it would be in Brussels interests that it would be catastrophic.
Perhaps my biggest issue though isn't to do with speculation, it's to do with the government. The lead leave campaigners, Johnson and Gove, have pushed a campaign of little short of hyperbole. Our EU rebate subsidises agriculture and research, among many other fields. The leave campaign has never mentioned how this funding would be maintained, and agriculture and science never features in the budget. Johnson claimed it would mean £350M to spend on the NHS, which is just pandering to the idiotic masses. The truth is the leave campaign haven't thought beyond the end of the month.
Cameron should never have allowed this referendum to happen. The vast majority of economics academics say Brexit would be disastrous, and the leave campaign are yet to give reasons that are neither objectively inaccurate nor xenophobic. People say democracy is dead, but truthfully it isn't. It's just shit.
PS: the Schengen Agreement basically prohibits members from having border controls between each other. Couple of other things but that's the big one. Don't have to be EU to be Schengen, see Switzerland and Iceland.
40% UK exports go to EU, which is a massive majority. EU wouldn't be keen to allow UK just to remain a part of free trade zone, they would need to be strict to prevent nationalism. Already far right in France and Austria (who btw only narowly avoided electing a far right party in the past weeks) have been advocating leaving the EU. A successful Brexit could destabilise the Union, so it would be in Brussels interests that it would be catastrophic.
Perhaps my biggest issue though isn't to do with speculation, it's to do with the government. The lead leave campaigners, Johnson and Gove, have pushed a campaign of little short of hyperbole. Our EU rebate subsidises agriculture and research, among many other fields. The leave campaign has never mentioned how this funding would be maintained, and agriculture and science never features in the budget. Johnson claimed it would mean £350M to spend on the NHS, which is just pandering to the idiotic masses. The truth is the leave campaign haven't thought beyond the end of the month.
Cameron should never have allowed this referendum to happen. The vast majority of economics academics say Brexit would be disastrous, and the leave campaign are yet to give reasons that are neither objectively inaccurate nor xenophobic. People say democracy is dead, but truthfully it isn't. It's just shit.
PS: the Schengen Agreement basically prohibits members from having border controls between each other. Couple of other things but that's the big one. Don't have to be EU to be Schengen, see Switzerland and Iceland.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
I am just glad us Americans can't vote on an issue as complex as this one.
im_Mongo
Member
The UK is the 5th biggest economy in the world. Our trade with EU countries has been falling since 2006 even with the trade tariffs outside of the EU. We import from the EU more than we Export. The countries we are biggest trading partners with are Germany, France, Netherlands i.e. the countries that the EU cares about. If you don't think we could renegotiate our own trade agreement that is at least fair to both parties you deluded.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13697261:im_Mongo said:
Mr. Krugman would like to have a word with you.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/boris-is-bad-enough/?smid=tw-share
Jaggy_Snake
Active member
All the information on leaving the EU can be found here: voteleave.co.uk
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13697261:im_Mongo said:
No.
If we left the EU and wanted to sign a new trade agreement we would have to enter the Schengen agreement, pay into EU but receive nothing back, and accept all EU trade standards despite having no influence on them.
In short, we'd have less border control than we currently do, give roughly three times more net money to the EU, and still gain no more sovereignty.
This is the situation for all countries who want access to the single market, including Norway, who have a far more valuable export than anything the UK produces: oil. While the UK does export oil, it does so in a third the quantity and at significantly higher price.
It's unlikely the EU would allow a favorable trade deal early because they want to prevent nationalism elsewhere in the EU. The population France and Germany are becoming considerably more anti-EU, and arguably they have far more reason to be given they have been hit harder by the refugee crisis.
I buy the argument that because we're a big economy they will be happy to trade with us. We need them to survive, they don't need us. Our imports from EU are substantially more important than that that we export. I've already explained that trading with us doesn't help the EU politically, if it doesn't really help them economically why should they do it?
It's also worth noting that a large chunk of our exports are cars and mechanical machinery. This equipment is in the UK for three reasons: very strong higher education in STEM, the societies for all of which are campaigning against Brexit as EU provides more research funding than government; low corporation tax, and easy shipping to EU single market. If we don't have trade with EU, there is no reason for these companies to remain.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13697763:im_Mongo said:
13697764:im_Mongo said:
Kinda funny how all the remain arguments are well reasoned, but the leave 'arguments' are little more than 'MAH NATIONALISM' and personal attacks/outright lies from Boris Johnson.
It's strangely reminiscent of a certain Scottish Referendum.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13697792:im_Mongo said:
I'll continue to disagree with this until leave drops the '£350M a week' claim, already proven to be false, and Boris Johnsons made up bailout.
Neither side has run a good campaign, but when it comes to the actual arguments Remain has better; and at least Remain has a (realistic) plan for the future, which is something Leave is yet to offer.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698021:Campeador said:
*Nobel Prize winner for his work on International Trade which is basically what the Brexit is all about. Also, the UK Treasury, OECD, and IMF all seem to agree that the Brexit is a bad idea.
Right, and who are they going to trade with? Who is going to take up the ~40% of their exports? It won't be the US if Trump is elected, and it won't be the EU since a requirement as stated above will involve them becoming part of the Schengen Agreement.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13698042:.MASSHOLE. said:
It wouldn't be the US if Hillary was elected either.
Another big problem with the Leave campaign is all the campaigners want different things. Some want isolationism, others want us to get friendly with the rest of the Commonwealth (because they all love us /s). Some want more regulation, others want less, some want it to remain the same. Everyone wants the money we would 'save' to be invested differently. The leave campaign know this, and that's why they haven't given a clear plan as to what a post-EU UK would look like. Because if they did they'd die of internal squabbling.
Instead we now have to wait until after a successful Brexit before the squabbling begins, at which point it's too late to turn back.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698045:*DUMBCAN* said:
I agree, but with Trump, or Bernie, you would face more isolationist/nationalist policies involving trade than with Hillary. I don't know the current import/export ratio between US and the UK so it is a moot point.
That's what I have gathered from albeit brief overviews. It is a very disjointed campaign with different end goals which should immediately raise red flags.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
Any comments on this piece Dumbcan?
http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/brexiting-yourself-foot-why-britains-eurosceptic-regions-have-most-lose-eu-withdrawal
Interested to see what a native has to say.
http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/brexiting-yourself-foot-why-britains-eurosceptic-regions-have-most-lose-eu-withdrawal
Interested to see what a native has to say.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698144:Campeador said:
I don't think you read that piece...
"At a national level, the referendum debate is boiling down to a trade-off: lower immigration by leaving, or secure the economy by remaining. But for eurosceptic regions that trade-off does not exist: by voting to leave the EU, the denizens of these regions would shrink immigration to London and other cities – while hurting their own region’s economy."
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698194:Campeador said:
You seemingly ignore the fact that trade with ANY EU country after the Brexit would require giving up more sovereignty. Britain needs the EU but I don't expect anyone with your lack of reading comprehension and selective memory to know that.
Campeador
Active member
13698196:.MASSHOLE. said:
Just the opposite, the EU needs the UK.
What does the EU have to offer in terms of economic powerhouses besides Germany (and to a much lesser extent France)?
Trade deals can easily be re-negotiated, especially with nations that have had close trading partnerships. If the EU wants to prevent individual nations from creating bilateral trade agreements with the UK, then I imagine that will only speed up the demise of the EU.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698201:Campeador said:
Wow, just wow. Keep speaking purely off opinion and not facts.
Do you know what Britains top export is? How about top 5? I will give them to you.
1. Machines, engines, and pumps.
2. Gems, precious metals
3. Vehicles
4. Pharmaceuticals
5. Oil
Now, 4 of the top 5 can be taken from member EU countries. The 5th, oil, can be taken from Norway at a much lower cost than Britain and is on the decline as is, and will most likely be replaced by electronic equipment.
Where is Britain's bargaining power for a better deal? 40% of Britain's exports go to the EU.
Campeador
Active member
13698203:.MASSHOLE. said:
Plenty of bargaining power, the UK is still one of the only economic powerhouses in Europe. If the EU attempts to block bilateral trade agreements between the UK and any member nation, I would imagine that country would vote to swiftly exit the EU. No nation should be beholden to that corrupt monolith.
You fail to explain why the UK would not be able to negotiate new trade deals with individual nations.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698201:Campeador said:
Here is a fun infographic for you.
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
I'll give you the spark notes
Top Export Destinations:
1. US (11%, $51B)
2. Germany (9.8%, $46.5B)
3. Netherlands (7.2%, $34.2B)
4. Switzerland (7.1 %, $33.6b)
5. France (5.7%, 27b)
Top Imports
1. Germany (15%, $100b, worth only 7.1% of exports),
2. China (9.4%, worth $62.7b)
3. Netherlands (7.6%, $50.7b, worth only 9.7% of exports)
4. United States ($44.4b)
5. France (6.3%, worth $41.5b, 7.3% of exports)
So, to sum it up. Britain is losing roughly 22.7% of their top 5 export destinations, and 28.9% of their top 5 imports that frankly are small drops in the bucket for Germany and France, with a slightly bigger one in the Netherlands.
They have no bargaining power. The EU can hit them with tariffs, both export and import.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
I could just post economic studies, but you will immediately call them globalist shills or something similar. No one is good enough but Campeador and his own opinion.
Campeador
Active member
13698208:.MASSHOLE. said:
No, they cannot. If the EU attempts tariffs all the member nations will be negatively affected, which will further erode any member's nation desire to stay in the EU. Nations have a right to negotiate their own trade agreements, not corrupt bureaucrats in Brussels.
Placing tariffs on the UK would be the EU's death knell.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698212:Campeador said:
Explain to me why then, the EU would forgo the requirements it placed on Norway AND Switzerland?
Then there is this:
"The Brexit camp’s claim that Europe needs Britain more than the other way round is fanciful: the EU takes almost half Britain’s exports, whereas Britain takes less than 10% of the EU’s; and the British trade deficit is mostly with the Germans and Spanish, not with the other 25 countries that would have to agree on a new trade deal."
Don't forget the loss of political power:
"In a globalised world, power is necessarily pooled and traded: Britain gives up sovereignty in exchange for clout through its memberships of NATO, the IMF and countless other power-sharing, rule-setting institutions. Signing up to treaties on trade, nuclear power or the environment involves submitting to regulations set jointly with foreigners, in return for greater gains. Britain outside the EU would be on the sidelines: notionally independent from, but in fact still constrained by, rules it would have no role in formulating. It would be a purer but rather powerless sort of sovereignty."
So, to put it simply for you seeing as you can only understand it that way:
Sovereignty=No trade power and no political power.
Nice. Let's get those regressive conditions going!
Campeador
Active member
13698213:.MASSHOLE. said:
I was speaking primarily of punitive tariffs, those put in place to essentially "punish" the UK for leaving. If the UK gets the same deal as Norway or Switzerland, I see nothing wrong with that.
National sovereignty is the key to the successful nation-state. Citizens of a nation care more about the political power they hold over their own governments, than the supposed negotiating power associated with being part of a globalist organization that erodes each citizen's right to self-determination.
It's really that simple.
You're still posting nonsense articles citing paid-off globalist economists, when really the core issue is one of philosophy and not economics.
So, do you believe that citizens of a nation have the right to self-determination?
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698218:Campeador said:
So you're ok with Schengen and open borders?
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
And I'm still waiting on what economists, news sources, poll sources, and pundits I can read. You seem to disapprove of almost every single credible expert.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698228:Campeador said:
Perhaps later tonight or tomorrow.
But it to put it shortly, yes people deserve sovereignty but there is no such thing in this day and age. Globalization has seen to the end of that.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
And there is no regaining it. Yes there will be nation-states, but no nation-state, not even the US, has enough power to go against the status-quo. No longer is the world dominated by military power, but rather economic power. Trade wars are a thing to fear, because while the rich and powerful do not have to worry, everyone else does. By attempting to engage in international political strong-arming, Britain will be putting its citizens at war with an organization with much more power and frankly ability to deal with the fallout.
The Brexit is an attempt to return to the 19th century status quo, where countries were able to be independent and frankly engage in semi and fully isolationist policies.
No one else will follow, leaving Britain alone floundering while its people struggle. They will be a bystander to every political decision on their continent, they will be unable to engage in effective and efficient economic trade, all at the expense of this idea of national sovereignty.
That version of sovereignty that you and the rest of these ideologues search for is gone.
The Brexit is an attempt to return to the 19th century status quo, where countries were able to be independent and frankly engage in semi and fully isolationist policies.
No one else will follow, leaving Britain alone floundering while its people struggle. They will be a bystander to every political decision on their continent, they will be unable to engage in effective and efficient economic trade, all at the expense of this idea of national sovereignty.
That version of sovereignty that you and the rest of these ideologues search for is gone.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13698235:Campeador said:
Find me a country that has the ability to do what they want at the expense of everyone else. There is none. Not the US, Russia, China, or the EU.
No one is independent. The ripples are felt everywhere.
Now, I guess you're willing to accept the risk and likelihood of Schengen.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13698227:.MASSHOLE. said:
13698077:.MASSHOLE. said:
Yeah sure.
What I see is a wider, more global, trend that's actually quite disturbing: poorer people tend to vote against their economic self interests. America is actually a really good case in point: the states whose populace have the most to gain from a single-payer healthcare system are those most vehemently against it.
So you have to ask 'why?'
It's a PhD thesis worthy question, so I don't know for sure, but I think it has a lot to do with a disconnection between the people and the economy. The 'textbook' Conservative politician is a Publicly-schooled, Oxford educated, PPE student. They're smart people, and they know how to maintain power, which is the primary drive for their decision making. The average working class man works a 9-to-5 at a manual job, where he spends most of the time talking to his colleagues. He left school at 16 with poor grades and now lives to drink Fosters while watching the football or, depending how far North you go, Rugby League.
The difference between these two stereotypes is gigantic, and the stereotypes largely hold true.
The working classes are those who feel economic shifts the most, particularly with a Conservative government hellbent on regressive taxation. Value added tax is at 20%, higher than the 17.5% of the pre-recession years, and this impacts the poor most. Add to this the tax cuts to the rich and the working classes feel persecuted, widening the divide between them and the leading politicians.
Now consider European migration. Eastern European workers are favored by employers for many jobs, particularly construction and cleaning. They work harder, do a better job and require less pay. It's no wonder the British working class is dying.
So when a politician like Nigel Farage promises to close the borders, to give those unskilled jobs to the British, how else do you expect the working classes to respond?
God forbid they learn skills and take up service jobs, then they'd have to actually work.
In short, poorer people see the economy as something that has really fucked them over continuously, firstly by squeezing their paychecks and then by 'THEY TERK ER JERBS'. I've forgotten 2008 and the recession, that really screwed over the poor.
While I write that I realise how similar our situation is to America's, it's like a cut and paste with different variables. Anyway I'm tired so I probably didn't argue my points very well but CBA to try again.
P.s.
I know it sounds like I'm talking as a typical conservative, scapegoating the poor for their own problems, but the truth is they are the source of most of their problems. Their inability and unwillingness to work is well documented.
13698227:.MASSHOLE. said:
Don't hold your breath, the Leave campaign as a whole, acts like the mothers who refuse to vaccinate their kids because there is an old wives tale that vaccines cause autism. Every credible scientist says there is no link, millions of experiments have been carried out and none can find any evidence of a link but still the vaccines are rejected and the result is that children get ill and occasionally die. Blind denial is the last refuge of those who cannot argue a point using evidence because none exists.
The reality is there are very few respected experts, very few important businesses, in fact very few people who have any clue about the few facts that actually exist in this debate, who believe Leave is a viable option. In fact, I can't think of a single Leave campaign claim which can't be relatively easily disproved. Leave is however a very successful series of lies and mistruths headed up by a powerful tabloid media and a few populist xenophobes. They may indeed win.
I'm going to leave (ha) the £350m a week saving lie alone because that has been debunked time and time again. And even if it was a real sum (which it isn't) it would take a contraction of the UK economy of less than 1% to wipe out all the money we can supposedly save. The remaining arguments are essentially:
That the UK has given up its sovereignty which doesn't bear any examination even in the most superficial way. If the UK had given up its sovereignty, there would be no point in this referendum. The EU could simply ignore the results, as Spain did the results of a Catalan referendum recently. The UK can call this referendum and decide to leave the Union at any point, ergo the UK remains sovereign.
Fallback argument number one is generally: "The EU is an unelected bunch of bureaucrats, we need a democracy". An argument which has some theoretical merit, but conveniently ignores the fact that in the UK we don't actually have one either, certainly no more of one than the EU. The House Of Lords, which is required to pass all law, is unelected. The Civil Servants who draft nearly all of our laws, are unelected. The absolute majority Conservative government, the only elected element of our system, received only 37% of the vote in the last election. We don't even have a constitution to guarantee that the basic ideals of the country, whatever they might be, aren't ignored. That is not democracy, that is minority rule. The EU has a significant democratic deficit too, its accountability needs to be hugely improved, but is still better than what the UK has.
Fallback argument number two is the old faithful, immigration. There are plenty of lies here too. For example, Turkey is not joining the EU. It started the process of trying to join in 1987 and in 29 years, it still hasn't come close to meeting the EU's required criteria. Then there is the unsolvable issue of Cyprus. Even if all these obstacles were overcome, the UK could still veto Turkish membership, as could all other member states.
The entire argument ignores the fact that, despite popular opinion, immigration is a net contributor to the economy. The fact that the government may not have reinvested said contribution in to improving social services to cope with a population increase is not an EU matter, it is a national political matter. Funnily enough the EU has no say in how the UK budget is invested (except for the less than 1% that is 'paid' in membership to the EU) because the UK is, you guessed it, a sovereign nation. Immigration is however a perfect scapegoat for governmental failure to provide for those who are worst off in society, and has been used as such all throughout history.
At the end of the day though many people don't care that the facts where they exist (and where they don't, the best estimates of those best positioned to predict likely outcomes) all argue one thing. And like it or lump it, that is their prerogative, that is democracy.
**This post was edited on Jun 15th 2016 at 9:24:36pm
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
Thanks you two. As an American, I am woefully uninformed about the UK on the whole, and have no idea how the general population feels about this Brexit.
It does seem that there are some very similar sentiments between Trump supporters and those who support the Brexit.
It does seem that there are some very similar sentiments between Trump supporters and those who support the Brexit.
Firstly, I need to state that Campeador, responded to my previous post here by saying that it was bullshit analysis and that I just want my friends in the Jungle Camps to come to tea. His post, while moronic, got deleted accidentally in a clean up of hate speech (which is against NS rules) and he is presently banned for an undecided period.
Scaremongering is a much overused word in this referendum by both Leavers and Remainers. The reality is there are very few inalienable facts in this debate and both sides are guilty of stating potential outcomes as facts. There are however differences between likely outcomes as postulated by the majority of economists, outcomes considered possible and outcomes that no economist, no commentator actually sees as possible. People are equating those three and calling them all scaremongering is perhaps the biggest issue in this referendum.
I'm going to attempt to outline the difference using two examples from yesterday which relate to the same issue, future possibilities. Including the one you mentioned using a single basic fact as the premise.
Here is the fact: Most economists agree that Brexit will cause a contraction in the UK economy. The reason this is a fact, not conjecture is that this sentence does not say, Brexit WILL cause a contraction because that is not guaranteed, it is merely a high probability outcome. However the vast majority of economists (including some who argue to Leave) acknowledge that it is however, the likely outcome making the statement factual.
George Osborne stated yesterday that, in the face of a shrunken economy cuts will have to be made to the NHS, pensions and other services, and tax will need to be raised. This is a misleading statement. A shrunken economy is the likely outcome, but the decision of whether of not to cut social services in the face of a contracted economy is a government policy decision. It would equally be a policy decision whether or not to raise tax. Instead of either or both, for example, we could instead borrow money in order to bridge the shortfall or cut costs from other areas of the economy.
However, as the current Chancellor of the ruling party, Osborne's claim does carry some weight as it suggests this is a route a Conservative Government, containing him or otherwise, may ultimately chose to go. It would also be a historically typical Conservative Government response. Therefore while presenting his argument as a definite outcome of Brexit is misleading, dismissing it as scaremongering is also flawed because many experts would consider this exact situation at the very least, a real possibility, and plenty would argue it is the likely outcome of Brexit (including the heads of the NHS fyi).
On the same day, the Leave campaign said they would boost NHS spending by 100m, and that this would be paid for by money saved by not paying EU membership. This can not be considered a realistic possibility. Remember that all experts think at least a small contraction in the Economy is the most likely outcome. It would take an economic contraction of less than 0.5% in order to wipe out all the money we send to the EU. Therefore the most likely outcome in the the event of Brexit is that this money would not exist. (see here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36485464).
That is the difference between claims on the future being made by the two sides. Remain present as facts something that might realistically happen, but could well not subject to choices, be they UK govt. choices or otherwise. It is misleading to present these things as facts. However Leave present possible futures based on numbers which don't add up. They say you can have your cake and eat it. I have yet to see a Leave strategy for exit that holds up as plausible to even very minor scrutiny. That is unforgivable in such a complicated debate.
**This post was edited on Jun 16th 2016 at 12:47:56pm
13698391:im_Mongo said:
Scaremongering is a much overused word in this referendum by both Leavers and Remainers. The reality is there are very few inalienable facts in this debate and both sides are guilty of stating potential outcomes as facts. There are however differences between likely outcomes as postulated by the majority of economists, outcomes considered possible and outcomes that no economist, no commentator actually sees as possible. People are equating those three and calling them all scaremongering is perhaps the biggest issue in this referendum.
I'm going to attempt to outline the difference using two examples from yesterday which relate to the same issue, future possibilities. Including the one you mentioned using a single basic fact as the premise.
Here is the fact: Most economists agree that Brexit will cause a contraction in the UK economy. The reason this is a fact, not conjecture is that this sentence does not say, Brexit WILL cause a contraction because that is not guaranteed, it is merely a high probability outcome. However the vast majority of economists (including some who argue to Leave) acknowledge that it is however, the likely outcome making the statement factual.
George Osborne stated yesterday that, in the face of a shrunken economy cuts will have to be made to the NHS, pensions and other services, and tax will need to be raised. This is a misleading statement. A shrunken economy is the likely outcome, but the decision of whether of not to cut social services in the face of a contracted economy is a government policy decision. It would equally be a policy decision whether or not to raise tax. Instead of either or both, for example, we could instead borrow money in order to bridge the shortfall or cut costs from other areas of the economy.
However, as the current Chancellor of the ruling party, Osborne's claim does carry some weight as it suggests this is a route a Conservative Government, containing him or otherwise, may ultimately chose to go. It would also be a historically typical Conservative Government response. Therefore while presenting his argument as a definite outcome of Brexit is misleading, dismissing it as scaremongering is also flawed because many experts would consider this exact situation at the very least, a real possibility, and plenty would argue it is the likely outcome of Brexit (including the heads of the NHS fyi).
On the same day, the Leave campaign said they would boost NHS spending by 100m, and that this would be paid for by money saved by not paying EU membership. This can not be considered a realistic possibility. Remember that all experts think at least a small contraction in the Economy is the most likely outcome. It would take an economic contraction of less than 0.5% in order to wipe out all the money we send to the EU. Therefore the most likely outcome in the the event of Brexit is that this money would not exist. (see here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36485464).
That is the difference between claims on the future being made by the two sides. Remain present as facts something that might realistically happen, but could well not subject to choices, be they UK govt. choices or otherwise. It is misleading to present these things as facts. However Leave present possible futures based on numbers which don't add up. They say you can have your cake and eat it. I have yet to see a Leave strategy for exit that holds up as plausible to even very minor scrutiny. That is unforgivable in such a complicated debate.
**This post was edited on Jun 16th 2016 at 12:47:56pm
Rennis_Deynolds
Active member
Last week tonight did a great bit on it check it out on YouTube
