The Student Room Group

Latest You Gov poll shows 7% majority for Leave

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fullofsurprises
Nissan is just one of many big exporting manufacturers that located large plants here because we are in the EU. They also support a big tail of downstream supplier businesses.

What is noteworthy for Leavers is the total lack of thought about what really matters here - it clearly doesn't matter that we will lose potentially up to 2 million manufacturing jobs,

Claims that leaving the EU would result in 2 million job losses are not credible.

They're not even internally consistent. If British exports collapse, which Remainians predict, then we might not need to build as many Nissans but we will need a lot more people employed manufacturing goods domestically that we currently import. You are trying to double count costs and ignore benefits.

what is that compared to the burning need to exclude some Poles?

Obviously that is not a complete overview of reasons people oppose EU membership, nor a particularly charitable description of the views of opponents of immigration.
Original post by jneill
Editors that act contrary to Murdoch don't last very long.

And "In evidence to a House of Lords select committee in 2007, Murdoch even said that he acted like "a traditional proprietor" in regard to the Sun and the News of the World by "exercising control on major issues, such as which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe.""


And do you know what a great many of the prominent remainers were saying in 2007?
Original post by elen90
Complaints about the word racism: one of the most overdone complaints there is.

A complaint about being silenced by the word, in order to ironically silence 'leftie liberals' who justifiably use it, so that the bigoted can continue to perpetuate their racist ideals and rationalise them by saying 'I refuse to adhere to this political correctness gone mad'.

The words liberalism and socialism are becoming stigmatised more than racist agendas are.


odd how racism silences groups that aren't being silenced by the alleged racism, it really is today used as code for "I disagree but can't argue with your point"
Original post by Sun_Bear
Look, i'm not a Boeing expert and won't claim to be one. All i know i that in an interview with Andrew Neil, George Osborne used Boeing as an example of a company which will leave the UK in result of a Brexit. Boeing have since said they are remaining in UK regardless of outcome so i am very sceptical...


Well, I didn't see that interview but it isn't the first time a politician has talked crap..

Anyway, Boeing manufactures parts around the world and ships them to America or China to make a plane. So, the actual plane will always be subject to a tariff whether we are in the EU or not in the EU.

Nissan is different because the car is actually produced here. That is why Nissan hasn't confirmed that they will stay in the UK.
Original post by jneill
Editors that act contrary to Murdoch don't last very long.

And "In evidence to a House of Lords select committee in 2007, Murdoch even said that he acted like "a traditional proprietor" in regard to the Sun and the News of the World by "exercising control on major issues, such as which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe.""


Complaints that Murdoch has an ideology miss the point. Socialist Worker has an ideology. The Times doesn't outsell Socialist Worker because of evil Murdoch mind rays but because more people agree with the ideology of The Times than the ideology of Socialist Worker. Murdoch's ideological papers have big readerships because his ideology is persuasive, not because it's the only one permitted.
Original post by Jammy Duel
And do you know what a great many of the prominent remainers were saying in 2007?


Eh? That's irrelevant. You commented on editorial v publisher influence. I replied Murdoch has a lot of influence.

What will be interesting is which side The Times will come down on.
Original post by elen90
The British people are not educated enough to make such a complex decision. Call me derisive and a snob, but it's simply the truth.


You are 'derisive and a snob' [sic]. But even worse than both of these; you're wrong. (More confusingly, you also seem to think derisive is a noun when it's clearly an adjective...)


Someone makes a decision you disagree with, you call them uneducated and want to take the decision out of their hands! Indeed, what's the point of a democracy at all? Why don't we just have all the people who think themselves 'clever' make all the decisions for us! Why not skip all that complicated business of thinking for yourself and just let people that are cleverer than you do it instead?!


It's not complicated to want to live under your own laws proposed and voted for by your own MPs. It's not complicated to want control of your own borders. It's not complicated to want to make trade deals with the other 160 countries in the world without being vetoed by Italian tomato farmers.


I can't wait for the morning of June 24th when we awaken to find out the great British public has thrown your elitist nonsense out the window! Hurrah!

SS
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by jneill
Eh? That's irrelevant. You commented on editorial v publisher influence. I replied Murdoch has a lot of influence.

What will be interesting is which side The Times will come down on.


Not sure how the Financial Times and Times are related but the Financial Times is very strongly pro EU from the nature of their articles.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I think what I actually said was that survey data shows that racist attitudes are found in the highest concentrations in E. Anglia and some other middle class white rural areas (fact) and that those are also highly associated with UKIP voting (fact).

I don't know why the Right try to hide their racism when they parade it so much, it's crushingly obvious that the immigration debate is a mere dog whistle appeal to racist voters. That's why Farage's supporters hurled abuse at a black woman for daring to ask him what difference to black people in Britain is made by the racist atmosphere created by his constant banging on about immigration.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/14/brexit-farage-racist-backlash-immigration-eu-debate-racism-threat-minorities


No you didn't. You showed a map of the referendum polling, and then starting waffling about how they're all racists.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-on-rise-in-britain

By this map, East Anglia has the lowest levels of racist attitudes in England.


Oh and here we go waffling about racism again. Brexiters are racist because they want to abandon political ties with the whitest continent on Earth and instead throw our lot in with a group that includes 1.3 billion Indians? Cool logic bro.
Original post by Observatory

They're not even internally consistent. If British exports collapse, which Remainians predict, then we might not need to build as many Nissans but we will need a lot more people employed manufacturing goods domestically that we currently import. You are trying to double count costs and ignore benefits.
.


That is just made up.

We are not going to start manufacturing more goods domestically unless we put tariffs up.

And if tariffs were placed then we are just creating the same goods at more expensive price than before. No benefit there.
Original post by pol pot noodles
No you didn't. You showed a map of the referendum polling, and then starting waffling about how they're all racists.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-on-rise-in-britain

By this map, East Anglia has the lowest levels of racist attitudes in England.


Oh and here we go waffling about racism again. Brexiters are racist because they want to abandon political ties with the whitest continent on Earth and instead throw our lot in with a group that includes 1.3 billion Indians? Cool logic bro.


Oh please. Everyone knows Farage just invented that guff about wanting to substitute EU migrants for Commonwealth migrants just to try to demonstrate that "he's no racist, ya", As if anyone thinks for a moment that UKIP really mean it. :rolleyes:
Original post by DorianGrayism
That is just made up.

We are not going to start manufacturing more goods domestically unless we put tariffs up.

And if tariffs were placed then we are just creating the same goods at more expensive price than before. No benefit there.


We will start manufacturing more goods domestically if we start exporting significantly less, which will reduce the value of the pound and therefore limit our ability to import. This is similar to a tariff but it is a consequence of changes in market prices, not government policy.

And I agree that this will make us worse off in the sense that those foreign countries can make those goods cheaper than we can, or else we wouldn't be buying them today, but the claim was that Brexit would result in unemployment, not reduce living standards. There is no connection between foreign trade and unemployment.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Sun_Bear
Not sure how the Financial Times and Times are related but the Financial Times is very strongly pro EU from the nature of their articles.


They aren't.

FT used to be owned by Pearson Group (who also own Edexcel). It's now owned by Nikkei - a Japanese publisher (they have the Nikkei Tokyo stock market index, like the FTSE index, although, confusingly, the FTSE is no longer part of the FT itself...)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Oh please. Everyone knows Farage just invented that guff about wanting to substitute EU migrants for Commonwealth migrants just to try to demonstrate that "he's no racist, ya", As if anyone thinks for a moment that UKIP really mean it. :rolleyes:


Whether UKIP want it or not is completely irrelevant. The whole point is that whatever government is elected has the ability to pass laws without having to go via the EU in the process for approval. Over time the EU is only going to want to be bigger and more powerful and the impact that our government will decline.
Original post by Observatory
We will start manufacturing goods domestically if we start exporting significantly less, which will reduce the value of the pound and therefore limit our ability to import. This is similar to a tariff but it is a consequence of changes in market prices, not government policy.



Sorry but how did you reach that conclusion? The pound will be trashed and therefore, we can export?

Original post by Observatory

And I agree that this will make us worse off in the sense that those foreign countries can make those goods cheaper than we can, or else we wouldn't be buying them today, but the claim was that Brexit would result in unemployment, not reduce living standards. There is no connection between foreign trade and unemployment.


Well, Brexit will result in some unemployment in the short term after the referendum. I doubt it would be a million or whatever silly number was put out.
Original post by DorianGrayism
Sorry but how did you reach that conclusion?

Thus,
We will start manufacturing goods domestically if we start exporting significantly less, which will reduce the value of the pound and therefore limit our ability to import. This is similar to a tariff but it is a consequence of changes in market prices, not government policy.


Well, Brexit will result in some unemployment in the short term after the referendum. I doubt it would be a million or whatever silly number was put out.


Short term shocks can result in short term unemployment, although I doubt that Brexit is going to be a "shock". It is probably going to come after several years of detailed negotiation. edit: I basically agree with your statement here.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Sun_Bear
Not sure how the Financial Times and Times are related but the Financial Times is very strongly pro EU from the nature of their articles.


Well, yes. Banks and etc hate uncertainty and volatility.

That is why they are investing Government bonds that are losing money at the moment because they are "guaranteed" a return.

So the writers at the FT hate situations like this.
Original post by Axion
Yeah so no that's not how it works. As markets fall, companies become less able/willing to undertake equity funding. Traders will naturally always be on the end of some losses. In addition, the asset value of pension funds falls, which under Defined Benefit schemes leads to a pension deficit etc.

Who is to say it will correct very quickly? Nobody knows, and quite frankly the markets HATE uncertainty. I'd be very surprised if the UK market strengthened much if there is a Brexit vote.

In essence, a falling UK equity market is never good news. What makes you think that the market has got the economic readthrough wrong?


Yeah basically this. None of the vote leave population will understand this post though.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Zayn is Bae
Yeah basically this. None of the vote leave population will understand this post though.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I understand it, i 100% agree that there will be negative consequences in the short run of a Brexit but where we differ is the long term.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Oh please. Everyone knows Farage just invented that guff about wanting to substitute EU migrants for Commonwealth migrants just to try to demonstrate that "he's no racist, ya", As if anyone thinks for a moment that UKIP really mean it. :rolleyes:


'Commonwealth > EU' has been UKIP's foreign policy since time immemorial. You really have little to substantiate your argument with. If isolated incidents and cherry-picked anecdotes are proof, then the entire British left and most of 'remain' are all sneering, violent cyber bullies.
In fact you're usual the first and loudest with 'don't tar everyone with the same brush' any time a left-wing mob throws a violent tantrum in the streets of London, so your current attitude is highly hypocritical.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you