Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

You know why these other non EU nations want us in the EU? Watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    And please don't say we would 'have TTIP anyway', because it isn't a sufficient argument. We would only have it if we allowed a government or policy makers away with it, or didn't kick them right out or get rid of it. In Europe, we can do nothing, and all such decisions in the future will be the same. You will be an offshore colony, with them building armies, wanting the EU flag and the rest, which is ironic seeing as how much the union jack has been and will be pilloried as a nationalistic, vile symbol.
    We will get a vote on TTIP.

    It must be ratified by every member state of the EU before it becomes law. It will not be imposed on us unless our national parliament votes in favour of it - and when it comes to the vote in Westminster, it is then that we should begin to make noise about it, not now during the EU referendum, when frankly it is an irrelevant consideration.

    The TTIP argument for Brexit is a wrong argument meant to lure left-wing supporters into voting for Brexit as the only way to prevent the privatisation of state services. In fact, voting for Brexit means fewer safeguards against the privatisation policies of the authoritarian, hard-right Tory Brexiteers - whose agenda the EU prevents from being inflicted on our country through its regulations. If we leave the EU, then the hard-right Tory Brexiteers of the likes of Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg will have free reign to impose their policies of curbing trade unions, privatising the NHS, investing into fossil fuels, revoking same-sex marriage and bringing back hanging on our country. This is a far bigger right-wing threat to the UK than TTIP ever could be - so think again if the TTIP argument lures you into voting 'Leave'!

    Despite this, Sweden has also apparently been keen to have an exception for state healthcare in TTIP - so we're yet to see what it actually contains. We shouldn't judge it before we know its full contents.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You declare the likes of the IMF, IFS, CBI etc are Brussels funded, but then cite hundreds of economists...who are also Brussels funded, even if not as directly. Their employers will be part of the Brussels elite, or their research funding comes from is it Horizon 2020 (even though participation does not require EU membership)
    Potentially - but whilst the partiality of the economics organisations are proven, the partiality of each of the the individual economists are not. This is therefore very much an unsubstantiated claim - and means that we can trust individual economists far more than we can trust associations of economists.

    Yes, the associations are far less in favour of Brexit than the individual economists - but all agree overwhelmingly that it would be awful for the UK's economy at least in the short-term.

    At the same time, none of these facts actually negate the fact that there has not been a single reputable, independent study of Brexit demonstrating that the UK won't suffer in GDP loss in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit.

    One 'Brexit blueprints' conducted a while back did record an eventual gain of £1 per person per day if we left the EU - and I wonder whether this is a price worth paying for the freedom of movement across the continent - but this study was criticised by The Economist and The New Statesman alongside other leading voices. It didn't entirely understand the relationship between the UK and the EU in certain faculties, such as garbage-collecting, whereby through one tax the EU's revenue from it goes to the Treasury for garbage collection, so it would wrongly assume that although you gain £1 every day by leaving the EU, you're not actually having your rubbish collected because nobody is funding the garbage collection services. Several other similar inconsistencies also cropped up, which easily reduce that £1 per person per day to little more than a bit a day.

    Suffice to say, in my view, that the economic argument for Brexit has no solid foundation. The Brexit campaign should realise this and stop trying to debate economics - and focus, as has been mentioned previously, on its more appealing and convincing arguments, like immigration, if it wants to win the campaign.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    We will get a vote on TTIP.It must be ratified by every member state of the EU before it becomes law. It will not be imposed on us unless our national parliament votes in favour of it - and when it comes to the vote in Westminster, it is then that we should begin to make noise about it, not now during the EU referendum, when frankly it is an irrelevant consideration.

    The TTIP argument for Brexit is a wrong argument meant to lure left-wing supporters into voting for Brexit as the only way to prevent the privatisation of state services. In fact, voting for Brexit means fewer safeguards against the privatisation policies of the authoritarian, hard-right Tory Brexiteers - whose agenda the EU prevents from being inflicted on our country through its regulations. If we leave the EU, then the hard-right Tory Brexiteers of the likes of Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg will have free reign to impose their policies of curbing trade unions, privatising the NHS, investing into fossil fuels, revoking same-sex marriage and bringing back hanging on our country. This is a far bigger right-wing threat to the UK than TTIP ever could be - so think again if the TTIP argument lures you into voting 'Leave'!

    Despite this, Sweden has also apparently been keen to have an exception for state healthcare in TTIP - so we're yet to see what it actually contains. We shouldn't judge it before we know its full contents.
    If it gets to the ratification stage the odds of it not being ratified are practically zero. It will either go to a whipped commons vote and it is passed, or it could even operate in true EU style and the commission representative says "sure".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Most of these can't be trusted, really. The Treasury is obviously partial to the government, which is pro-EU. The IFS (and I believe the IMF too?) receive funding from the European Union.
    I think this is probably one of the best explanations of the current situation I have heard

    https://youtu.be/aDjz-ZF1Lc0?t=2m40s

    Bear in mind that Giles Brandreth used to be a Tory MP at the time we leave the exchange rate mechanism.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I think this is probably one of the best explanations of the current situation I have heard

    https://youtu.be/aDjz-ZF1Lc0?t=2m40s

    Bear in mind that Giles Brandreth used to be a Tory MP at the time we leave the exchange rate mechanism.
    That was a fantastic episode

    I didn't realise the partiality of such organisations, in fact, until that episode
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Potentially - but whilst the partiality of the economics organisations are proven, the partiality of each of the the individual economists are not. This is therefore very much an unsubstantiated claim - and means that we can trust individual economists far more than we can trust associations of economists.

    Yes, the associations are far less in favour of Brexit than the individual economists - but all agree overwhelmingly that it would be awful for the UK's economy at least in the short-term.

    At the same time, none of these facts actually negate the fact that there has not been a single reputable, independent study of Brexit demonstrating that the UK won't suffer in GDP loss in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit.

    One 'Brexit blueprints' conducted a while back did record an eventual gain of £1 per person per day if we left the EU - and I wonder whether this is a price worth paying for the freedom of movement across the continent - but this study was criticised by The Economist and The New Statesman alongside other leading voices. It didn't entirely understand the relationship between the UK and the EU in certain faculties, such as garbage-collecting, whereby through one tax the EU's revenue from it goes to the Treasury for garbage collection, so it would wrongly assume that although you gain £1 every day by leaving the EU, you're not actually having your rubbish collected because nobody is funding the garbage collection services. Several other similar inconsistencies also cropped up, which easily reduce that £1 per person per day to little more than a bit a day.

    Suffice to say, in my view, that the economic argument for Brexit has no solid foundation. The Brexit campaign should realise this and stop trying to debate economics - and focus, as has been mentioned previously, on its more appealing and convincing arguments, like immigration, if it wants to win the campaign.
    I suggest you punch the £1 per person per day into a calculator, that's nearly 1% of GDP, and rubbish collection is the responsibility of local councils, to suggest that because one revenue stream has been cut off no other revenue stream will take its place in public services is about as barmy as the suggestion Brexit would cause WWIII, especially given that is money that instead of going from pocket to treasury to eu to treasury to service would instead go pocket, treasury, service, cutting out that unaudited middle man with massive black holes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    I didn't realise the partiality of such organisations, in fact, until that episode
    You are right. Have I Got News for You has always had a dim view of politicians in general!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I suggest you punch the £1 per person per day into a calculator, that's nearly 1% of GDP, and rubbish collection is the responsibility of local councils, to suggest that because one revenue stream has been cut off no other revenue stream will take its place in public services is about as barmy as the suggestion Brexit would cause WWIII, especially given that is money that instead of going from pocket to treasury to eu to treasury to service would instead go pocket, treasury, service, cutting out that unaudited middle man with massive black holes.
    I've dug up the report again. It's been a long time since I last looked at it. I'm afraid I slightly got the wrong end of the stick on the garbage collection

    Firstly, this is the study - as you can see, not independent and not reputable, but the best thing I've seen to an economic defence of Brexit. Secondly, this is the criticism of the report explained - with this also well worth a read (although the latter's criticism is far less serious, it's still factual and informative and contains the point I was making about garbage collection).

    I quote from the former criticism, from Stuart Bonar on LibDemVoice.org, which I find to be the most coherent and well-articulated criticism of the study:

    "...the Landfill Tax, which has helped cut the amount of rubbish we dump in the ground. The No campaign wants to scrap it, and they claim doing so would leave each household £70 per year better off (page 55 of the report). But while it was an EU Directive that led to the creation of the Landfill Tax, the money it raises goes to the Treasury, not Brussels. Abolishing it would not therefore save Britain any money at all, rather it would create a new billion-pound hole in our public finances."

    "On benefits? Sorry, you can kiss goodbye to that extra £1.06 too. Page 457 of the report highlights what the No campaign sees as the additional cost to the social security budget of higher food prices caused by EU policies. The report explicitly links the Common Agricultural Policy’s “impact on food prices” with “the associated social welfare costs” (page 819). In other words they are arguing that leaving the EU would open the door to cheaper food imports, which they would use as a pretext to cut benefits."

    "Next on their target list is what they call “unduly burdensome regulations”. They want to abolish, for example, the requirement for bus operators to fit tachographs on long-distance routes (page 823). These are devices that record the speed vehicles travel at and the hours that drivers work. Really?"

    As you can see, small inconsistencies like this don't result in your claimed 1% GDP increase according to the study - which, I repeat, is the closest thing to a reputable economic study of Brexit that I've come across yet.

    Because of small inaccuracies like this, the study doesn't add up, like all claims of any economic benefits from Brexit. And as it shows, the alleged economic benefits from Brexit can only add up if the result is a Tory government clamping down on workers' rights, sick pay, maternity leave and various other civil liberties - so, essentially, it is unlikely for working and living conditions in the UK to remain the same in the event of Brexit unless the UK economy is allowed to collapse - which would cause these conditions to worsen anyway in the sense of greater unemployment and poverty.

    This reinforces the point that Brexit is one step closer towards Tory authoritarian rule - towards the nasty Britain that supports hanging, revokes same-sex marriage, abolishes the NHS, scraps the BBC and does away with maternity leave and sick pay.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If it gets to the ratification stage the odds of it not being ratified are practically zero. It will either go to a whipped commons vote and it is passed, or it could even operate in true EU style and the commission representative says "sure".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Large EU deals and changes actually fail to get ratified in at least 1-2 MS on a semi-frequent basis.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Large EU deals and changes actually fail to get ratified in at least 1-2 MS on a semi-frequent basis.
    Because they get held to ransom for other unrelated things, there is a reason why the EU has FTAs with so low a GDP.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because they get held to ransom for other unrelated things, there is a reason why the EU has FTAs with so low a GDP.
    That's an unreasonably sceptical view, and it nevertheless kind of exposes your previous point for silliness.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    That's an unreasonably sceptical view, and it nevertheless kind of exposes your previous point for silliness.
    The near certainty of our ratification is silly because continental Europe hang things up?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The near certainty of our ratification is silly because continental Europe hang things up?
    There's no good reason to think the UK is unique in its willingness to ratify.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    There's no good reason to think the UK is unique in its willingness to ratify.
    So now you're saying that the fact that we might not (and in fact probably aren't) the only MS that will very readily ratify we are will not readily ratify?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So now you're saying that the fact that we might not (and in fact probably aren't) the only MS that will very readily ratify we are will not readily ratify?
    No, I mean the fact that the distribution of MS unwilling to ratify thus far not including the UK to anything like a proportionate extent is coincidence, a sample size issue, rather than serious evidence (though FWIW it seems extremely likely that we'll ratify TTIP unfortunately).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    What is this potential greatness? As a country, we have never been so prosperous as this at any time in history.
    I will never, as long as I live, understand, or fail to be annoyed by this argument.
    You simply cannot take the progression of technology, which is a constant as much as the sun going up and coming down, and some bent economic argument that say we have more **** on average overall which is dubious at best because how do you compare eras objectively, when there are so many factors in economics,
    and evne then it's a whole other philosophical argument whether that means we are better off when all the wealth is headed in one direction
    This is before you even take into account crime, quality of life and the rest, as though it can be reduced to figures that are not even as objective or beyond question as they claim. Even if you disagree with me, you have to look at this case of well being which is often put in economic terms, and note that it does act as very strong propaganda for the perpetuation of an economic system that progressively consolidates more and more wealth in the the hands of the few and not the many.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    We will get a vote on TTIP.

    It must be ratified by every member state of the EU before it becomes law. It will not be imposed on us unless our national parliament votes in favour of it - and when it comes to the vote in Westminster, it is then that we should begin to make noise about it, not now during the EU referendum, when frankly it is an irrelevant consideration.

    The TTIP argument for Brexit is a wrong argument meant to lure left-wing supporters into voting for Brexit as the only way to prevent the privatisation of state services. In fact, voting for Brexit means fewer safeguards against the privatisation policies of the authoritarian, hard-right Tory Brexiteers - whose agenda the EU prevents from being inflicted on our country through its regulations. If we leave the EU, then the hard-right Tory Brexiteers of the likes of Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg will have free reign to impose their policies of curbing trade unions, privatising the NHS, investing into fossil fuels, revoking same-sex marriage and bringing back hanging on our country. This is a far bigger right-wing threat to the UK than TTIP ever could be - so think again if the TTIP argument lures you into voting 'Leave'!

    Despite this, Sweden has also apparently been keen to have an exception for state healthcare in TTIP - so we're yet to see what it actually contains. We shouldn't judge it before we know its full contents.
    Course we should. We should preserve our public service and not let US corporations get them. And every member state has to ratify, yes, that's why that Swedish woman was sent to Paris to bully them into it after they rejected it, Obama wanted it forced through. The Eu has a history of overiding democratic wishes of individual member states when it doesn't get the required result, like with Portugal, Ireland, rerun elections, and the sabotage of the process of Catalonia determining whether they can be independent. Why can't you see the writing on the wall, this is US domination and a one way deal which we simply need to have the gumption to stick two finger up two, I am not going to witness my country sold to powers that are going to crumble in the future, or otherwise even.

    If we were sovereign, we could reject it outright, systems where everyone has to vote as states, will just mean the majority pressures the minority into what they want. And as I say, it's not tall about the short term, it's about long term, when we reclaim more and more of our power, improve our institution, make a constitution, rework our country, and make it a better place according to our own initiative and our democracy. It makes no sense to look at centuries of greatness, and centuries into our future and make a decision based on our temporary post-imperial low point and lack of confidence, and short termism. None, it will be the biggest missed chance ever, to change not only Britain but the world. This current way of life won't last long, there will be monumental changes as tech evolves so quickly(some even say to a singularity), as climate change speeds up, as we run out of fossil fuels. The UK will be placed either to build it's greatness independently, or it will be trapped in global chaos thinking it has to be a martyr and destroy itself for others sakes. The globalist and those stuck purely in the present moment, who can't visualise the future, are wrong. There may will be a return to localism, when economies have to restructure, and even if there isn't, we are tying ourselves to a sinking ship. We wouldn't be happy to pool sovereignty with a climactic, cultural group like North Africa, or the middle east, so why with Turkey? Why with Greece or Southern Spain, imagine that plus many years of climate change, they will be chaos and backward. Don't discount the power of the climate thing either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I will never, as long as I live, understand, or fail to be annoyed by this argument.
    You simply cannot take the progression of technology, which is a constant as much as the sun going up and coming down, and some bent economic argument that say we have more **** on average overall which is dubious at best because how do you compare eras objectively, when there are so many factors in economics,
    and evne then it's a whole other philosophical argument whether that means we are better off when all the wealth is headed in one direction
    This is before you even take into account crime, quality of life and the rest, as though it can be reduced to figures that are not even as objective or beyond question as they claim. Even if you disagree with me, you have to look at this case of well being which is often put in economic terms, and note that it does act as very strong propaganda for the perpetuation of an economic system that progressively consolidates more and more wealth in the the hands of the few and not the many.
    I would love to comment on that, but I have absolutely no idea what it means.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.