The Remain Argument

Actually you are more wrong than that because tariffs are not taxes levied on exporters, they are sales taxes levied by a country on its own citizens. Tariffs on British goods will be paid by EU consumers, not British companies (although the converse is also true - tariffs on EU goods will be paid by British consumers, not EU companies).

The real cost of leaving the EU to British companies is the lost business due to their goods being made artificially more expensive in the EU minus the profits on the next-best alternative business they can do.

No, it is a discussion about facts, and you aren't presenting any. Your claim was that the flag was to be adopted as part of the 2004 Constitution, and that in the face of opposition we were told that the flag wouldn't be adopted - but that was a lie and it still was.

I have shown that your recollection has little merit, because the 12 stars are on euro coinage and banknotes, which date from, at the latest, 2002 - the banknotes also have the flag. I also gave you a reference that the flag was adopted, by a motion from the European Parliament, in 1985. Which, again, brings into doubt your recollection, or what you were paying attention to.

I think I said "probably", but even if I didn't the actual facts are unknown, because the tariff regime could be asymmetric - in the actual tariffs or the types of goods imported/exported.



I think you are not really understanding the point. if the EU imposes tariffs on UK made goods/services this is a competitive expense that UK companies have to bear. ie all things being equal, a UK made widget costs the same as a French made widget - but if there is a tariff on the UK made item the UK manufacturer has to reduce its factory gate prices (a direct cost) or concede that it will lose sales (an indirect cost).

I am not saying that a tariff is something the UK company necessarily pays (although that may sometimes be pat of the deal - due to an arrangement with the buyer, or because the manufacturer is also the direct retailer in the state exported to).

Illegally low wages are illegal. That is not really an argument about immigration, it is an argument about UK enforcement of labour laws. And, I think you are wrong about people's focus on this issue. Look at the poll information on this page:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/20/britons-on-europe-survey-results-opinium-poll-referendum

Something like 55% of people are saying the immigration is one of the most important issues affecting the UK (and it is the top ranking issue). IPSOS MORI says that the issue is not so important, but still 27% say this is the issue that will sway them (I think this is "single" issue):

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3722/Economy-and-immigration-key-issues-for-Britons-in-the-EU-referendum.aspx



I think you may be the exception, all I seem to see on the news is people going on about immigration all the time.

I don't really know what you mean by "integration" - what you might mean will be interpreted as different things by different people. However, I think the problem with this argument is that you are focusing on things in the future which may or may not happen, and which also may trigger another referendum. While I think it is reasonable to think about such things, I do believe that there is too much focus on such issues.

What the referendum is about is deciding whether the UK wants to be a member of the EU today, knowing what we know of it and how definite treaty obligations in place will change it. ie we know that most member states are committed to joining the eurozone at some point. What we don't know is if they will ever meet the criteria, or in fact whether future treaty changes will remove that obligation.

Let's say they all do meet the criteria - it might take 20 or 30 years to get to that stage.

I think this is somewhat short-sighted in many ways. The most obvious of these is that even if the UK were not a member of the EU we can't actually detach ourselves from Europe and sail off into the North Atlantic. Members or not, if there are external migrant issues in Europe then these probably have to be solved on a Europe-wide scale. We can see this now, with people managing to get across the channel from mainland Europe even though we supposedly have border controls. Trying to avoid these issues just makes them worse - a concerted European effort is required, not a piecemeal, state-by-state approach.

There are always political movements - the idea is to try to take their power away with national government policy. That's effectively why we are having a referendum - the Conservative party is trying to de-claw UKIP.

I disagree that the problem of Greece is being swept under the carpet. The bigger issue that you are missing is that Greece is in debt because Greece spent a lot of money it did not have. If Greece were not in the eurozone, and the Greek people have voted on this issue, its economy would be unstable for years, probably decades. They would have extremely high inflation and a constantly devaluing currency, and the Greek people know what that is like because they have suffered it in the past.

The position of Greece in the eurozone is not ideal, but it is far from the worst outcome.

The same is more or less true for Italy, Spain and Portugal - these economies would be very unstable without the benefit of the euro. You might want to wish that on those states, but I'm pretty sure that sentiment is not shared In Rome, Madrid or Lisbon.

As previously, we cannot fully decouple from these issues, I'm not sure we can even partially decouple.

Personally I believe that the time effort and money the UK puts into the EU is well worth the price if it establishes economic stability across the member states - and that is what it appears to be doing.

This is not a cooperative effort by independent states to work together to build security for their industries, this is Germany invading those countries and organising those industries to serve its war efforts.

I'm not really sure how you can conflate the ECSC with Germany's invasion of its neighbours and the confiscation of their industrial assets.

....
Frankly I do not think that the details of international trade matter very much to national prosperity unless you are dealing with a sole supplier of a certain good or if someone can cut you off from all suppliers and not just their own market (e.g. due to being at war and imposing a blockade).

Well said! As David Cameron put it before the "Remain" campaign started spreading lies:

And that still remains Camerons opinion. We could survie outside the EU just as Scotland could survive outside the UK, but economically we will be poorer.

If you want to see hypocrisy and dishonest opportunitism, behold:

No he said the argument wasnt about economic survival. Even the Treasury could only concoct an imagined lack of gain in prosperity by of a couple of hundred pounds a family a year over 15 years! Of course, no-one can see economics 15 years into the future anyway.

The economic argument is just a diversion and the Leave side should point this out at every opportunity. The real issue is that we will lose self-government if we Remain and be at the mercy of the vicious swings in European politics, swings that have not happened in the UK for centuries.

No but we can make predictions based on what we know. The Eurozone has actually outperformed the US and UK economies this year. I would love to stop talking about economics but Brexiters keep telling porkies and need to get their facts straight.

The economic arguments are simply a Remain campaign tactic. The Leave campaign is crazy to take part. Brexit will make little difference in the scale of the UK economy and all this talk about tariffs and contributions usually revolves around amounts that are a tiny fraction of the cost of projects such as HS2.

Remain and Leave should stop the economic BS and focus on sovereignty. If we remain we will, eventually, lose self government. I believe this will happen sooner than later. So who cares about self government? The Austrian Presidential elections should be a warning, one day we can be happily minding our own business and the next we could find ourselves in the hands of a fascist EU.

I find it astonishing that Remain voters believe that the EU is just like the UK and by voting Remain they will not be exposed to very dangerous political changes. For goodness sake, it is only 20 years since they were "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans! As part of an EU political union, with only about 10% of the vote in the EU Council and Parliament the people of the UK will just be swept aside.

for perhaps the only time in my life i find myself agreeing with Dwkns

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/you-and-i-are-too-stupid-to-decide-on-eu-fhd90jvxt

Look at the rise if the far right in Norway and the US. This is a western trend arising from the economic fallout of 08. Brexit will not solve these problems, in deed it will probably exacerbate them.

That's democracy yes. It also applies when electing representatives.

If you think it is such a problem go look to places like China for inspiration on how to do things differently.

I think scientists and academics in general have a bit of a bias for technocracy under the false understanding that everything would be much better if we just gave all the relevant power to relevant intellectuals.

What Dakwins says also applies to the economy. Yet what happened when we listened to the experts? What happened with the euro?

I suspect Dawkins wants an answer on the EU that has been tested in a lab, like what can be done with DNA. That isn't going to happen.

Well stated.

It's bizarre how many conservatives have that view of democracy when a really good example of a technocracy going so wrong is Leninism... Handing absolute power to Marxists who think they know precisely what is wrong with the world and how to go about fixing it is the example of why technocracy can be so dangerous.

This is based on a bi-polar view of the political spectrum (socialism vs. conservatism). This, in my opinion, is no longer the case with classical liberalism becoming a dominant force in global politics. In nations such as the U.S. or the U.K., although such individuals are indeed associated with the conservative movement, there is significant conflict between the two, especially in regards to economic and social policies. Therefore, it's very important to state that not all movements associated with conservatism are necessarily identical and therefore don't share this view of the world.

This is based on a bi-polar view of the political spectrum (socialism vs. conservatism). This, in my opinion, is no longer the case with classical liberalism becoming a dominant force in global politics. In nations such as the U.S. or the U.K., although such individuals are indeed associated with the conservative movement, there is significant conflict between the two, especially in regards to economic and social policies. Therefore, it's very important to state that not all movements associated with conservatism are necessarily identical and therefore don't share this view of the world.

I have commented on the sovereignty argument before.

Whilst close, Austria did not elect a far right president and elected a left wing candidate .

Oh, and serbia isn't in the EU and won't be till at least 2020. Look at the rise if the far right in Norway and the US. This is a western trend arising from the economic fallout of 08. Brexit will not solve these problems, in deed it will probably exacerbate them.