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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    You cant say that about the remain campaign, they dont use misleading figures, just persuasive language.
    I don't accept the figure isn't misleading though. The figure is the membership fee we pay for the EU. If you talk about the cost of something, you are not obliged to give equal weighting to the other side of the argument which is the benefits.

    The remain campaign do the same thing anyway. Eg "3 million jobs are linked to the EU". That is a more dubious statistic because it is not clear what 'linked' means. And whatever it means, why is it relevant? Some will say that is a cynical attempt to mislead people into conflating "linked" and "depends on".

    But whatever. If the remain side want to say that 3 million jobs are linked with the EU, fine. A journalist can ask them to expand on what they mean by linked and the leave side can argue that we won't loose many/ jobs and the debate rages on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I don't accept the figure isn't misleading though. The figure is the membership fee we pay for the EU. If you talk about the cost of something, you are not obliged to give equal weighting to the other side of the argument which is the benefits.

    The remain campaign do the same thing anyway. Eg "3 million jobs are linked to the EU". That is a more dubious statistic because it is not clear what 'linked' means. And whatever it means, why is it relevant? Some will say that is a cynical attempt to mislead people into conflating "linked" and "depends on".

    But whatever. If the remain side want to say that 3 million jobs are linked with the EU, fine. A journalist can ask them to expand on what they mean by linked and the leave side can argue that we won't loose many/ jobs and the debate rages on.
    We pay £55m but we get back a lot, if not more in return. This is fact. It has been deliberately left out hence it is misleading.

    3 million jobs are either directly or indirectly linked to the EU, is what they are saying. There's probably more too. It doesnt miss out information to make it biased at all, whereas the leave campaign does. It's just put succinctly to make it easy to understand. The figure is also very reliable.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    We pay £55m but we get back a lot, if not more in return. This is fact. It has been deliberately left out hence it is misleading.

    3 million jobs are either directly or indirectly linked to the EU, is what they are saying. There's probably more too. It doesnt miss out information to make it biased at all, whereas the leave campaign does. It's just put succinctly to make it easy to understand. The figure is also very reliable.
    It misses out the fact that although those jobs many be "linked" to the EU they do not depend on them.

    You can debate these things all day long so it is impossible to include all the arguments and relevant information whenever you talk about these topics. Which is why politicians will obviously spend the airtime putting across the facts and arguments that best support their side.

    What you think is required to be mentioned in order for a statement to not be misleading is a reflection of your own viewpoint.

    It is fine that you think that the fact we get money back and deserves a mention so say it. But then a counter argument to that would be that the EU tells us how we must spend that money. You are not a liar or being misleading by omitting that but I might want to make that argument. Then you might make a counterargument and we could go on and on from now until June 23rd.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    It misses out the fact that although those jobs many be "linked" to the EU they do not depend on them.
    The whole argument is that there is dependence. These jobs are very much at risk if we leave.

    (Original post by Sternumator)
    You can debate these things all day long so it is impossible to include all the arguments and relevant information whenever you talk about these topics. Which is why politicians will obviously spend the airtime putting across the facts and arguments that best support their side.What you think is required to be mentioned in order for a statement to not be misleading is a reflection of your own viewpoint.It is fine that you think that the fact we get money back and deserves a mention so say it. But then a counter argument to that would be that the EU tells us how we must spend that money. You are not a liar or being misleading by omitting that but I might want to make that argument. Then you might make a counterargument and we could go on and on from now until June 23rd.
    The issue i have here is with this nominal figure. We actually do get money back from the EU, thats the whole point of this thread. you're the one who has generalised it to the whole EU argument, im talking specifically about this misleading figure
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I would argue that we look at the economic history of Britain pre-1970s. A great deal of work has been done on this subject by leading trade historians who concluded that trade grew significantly between 1880-1913. For example, British trade volumes grew more than both Italy and the Netherlands during this period. It is not a perfect case but it shows that Britain can trade without the European Union (it's not going to be easy and it will take time but it is possible; a claim you denied in your earlier post).
    This is not an especially sensible point, such a feat cannot be repeated in an already-industrialised Western world, and also, more importantly, neither Italy nor the Netherlands had the might of the entire EU behind them then.

    Secondly, logical support may work on paper but it does not in actual trade negotiations. As mentioned previously, your basic assumption seems to be monetary value (For example, does a deal contribute a net profit or loss). It ignores the simple fact that nations such as Britain have different types of deals: some are exclusively trade, whereas for others, trade is but a part of the bilateral agreement. This ignores the complexity of bilateral exchange.
    Most major deals involving trade I'm aware of consist solely of trade provisions, and provisions to facilitate that trade.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    Whichever one where we lose voting privileges on. I think its this one, but im not too sure
    Would it be the 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure'? (Sorry, I'd rather share my opinion on something relevant )
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is not an especially sensible point, such a feat cannot be repeated in an already-industrialised Western world, and also, more importantly, neither Italy nor the Netherlands had the might of the entire EU behind them then.
    Perhaps but the argument put forward by yourself was that it's 'wishful thinking' and history shows it's not the case. Volume of trade and 'power' are very important leverage, but they are irrelevant when a nation has other interests (which is indeed the case with the EU). I will not speculate on what these motivations are as these are likely to be dependent on whether 'Brexit' occurs.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Most major deals involving trade I'm aware of consist solely of trade provisions, and provisions to facilitate that trade.
    You may want to do further research on the actual trade agreements then. This information is available on the European Union website.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    It misses out the fact that although those jobs many be "linked" to the EU they do not depend on them.

    You can debate these things all day long so it is impossible to include all the arguments and relevant information whenever you talk about these topics. Which is why politicians will obviously spend the airtime putting across the facts and arguments that best support their side.

    What you think is required to be mentioned in order for a statement to not be misleading is a reflection of your own viewpoint.

    It is fine that you think that the fact we get money back and deserves a mention so say it. But then a counter argument to that would be that the EU tells us how we must spend that money. You are not a liar or being misleading by omitting that but I might want to make that argument. Then you might make a counterargument and we could go on and on from now until June 23rd.
    No. Almost half of that money comes back to us DIRECTLY as a rebate. The EU doesn't tell us how to spend it, we just get it back.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Well this was informative, seems as though this thread is having the same exact inconclusive debate I've seen since the referendum started...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    You may want to do further research on the actual trade agreements then. This information is available on the European Union website.
    I've read the actual trade agreements. I think you're failing to understand how wide provisions to facilitate a trade agreement can be (hint: the vast, vast majority of EU law is just facilitation of it as a trade agreement).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Precisely.
    You think the EU will give the UK favorable trade deals if they leave?

    I mean of course it's possible, politicians are all weak scum, but realistically you are thinking of a situation where the UK slaps the EU in the face and then the EU holds the other cheek for a second slap.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    We do give £55m a day to the EU. Just because we receive some from the EU on things they choose to spend on, it doesn't mean we don't pay our contribution.

    Its not a blatant lie for me to state I paid the amount of tax that it says on my payslip. It isn't even misleading. I paid what I paid. Of course I may get some money back off the government in benefits which is like a rebate and the government provides me with services in return for that money. That is perfectly obvious. But I did pay for that in taxes.

    Saying £55m a day doesn't imply that amount is flushed down the toilet or used entirely for the benefit of foreigners. Of course we get some things from the EU but at a cost of £55m a day. It is up to the public to decide whether the benefits justify the £55m cost.
    So you wouldn't mind if the the Stay campaign started saying "We get £35m a day from the EU what a fantastic thing"?

    Because that is fact, too.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XOR_)
    Well this was informative, seems as though this thread is having the same exact inconclusive debate I've seen since the referendum started...
    Exactly. Tbh I've been pro-European since before it began in earnest so I might be biased, but I haven't seen anything that comes close to convincing me to leave. I think we'll be fine either way due to the strength of our economy but there's no compelling case IMO that we'll be better off if we leave.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brainhuman)
    You think the EU will give the UK favorable trade deals if they leave?
    Benefits of trade > pride.

    (Original post by brainhuman)
    I mean of course it's possible, politicians are all weak scum, but realistically you are thinking of a situation where the UK slaps the EU in the face and then the EU holds the other cheek for a second slap.
    Trade commissioners and attachés are not politicians.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Benefits of trade > pride.



    Trade commissioners and attachés are not politicians.
    It's nothing to do with pride. Allowing us to leave the EU without any consequences weakens the union. They have every reason to punish us for leaving.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    It's nothing to do with pride. Allowing us to leave the EU without any consequences weakens the union. They have every reason to punish us for leaving.
    (Original post by Merriam-Webster)
    Pride: a feeling that you respect yourself and deserve to be respected by other people.
    Very much the case, JordanL.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Benefits of trade > pride.



    Trade commissioners and attachés are not politicians.
    How naive, you think Merkel will not dictate things?

    And well that is a matter of opinion. Not to mention this has nothing to do with pride!?

    It has something to do with setting an example. With punishment for the UK for being selfish (the EU is also an idea, not simply a decision for a country do I benefit from it or not).

    Not to mention, no one said there would be no trade. There are many aspects to trade and I am sure the EU will give Britain a good deal in some areas it needs it to be good. But thinking that overall it will be as good for Britain as it is now, is very far-fetched, if not delusional.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brainhuman)
    How naive, you think Merkel will not dictate things?
    Evidence?

    (Original post by brainhuman)
    And well that is a matter of opinion. Not to mention this has nothing to do with pride!?
    See above definition of pride.

    (Original post by brainhuman)
    It has something to do with setting an example. With punishment for the UK for being selfish (the EU is also an idea, not simply a decision for a country do I benefit from it or not).
    See above post.

    (Original post by brainhuman)
    Not to mention, no one said there would be no trade. There are many aspects to trade and I am sure the EU will give Britain a good deal in some areas it needs it to be good. But thinking that overall it will be as good for Britain as it is now, is very far-fetched, if not delusional.
    Re-read the thread. This has already been discussed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I've read the actual trade agreements. I think you're failing to understand how wide provisions to facilitate a trade agreement can be (hint: the vast, vast majority of EU law is just facilitation of it as a trade agreement).
    My earlier point seems unclear. I don't deny your point; however, it deters from the initial discussion.The E.U. conducts a variety of deals. Some of these are trade deals whereas others are agreements of which trade is a component. From this stems the obvious conclusion that we cannot safely conclude that 'Brexit' will be positive or negative for Britain's bilateral agreements.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    My earlier point seems unclear. I don't deny your point; however, it deters from the initial discussion.The E.U. conducts a variety of deals. Some of these are trade deals whereas others are agreements of which trade is a component. From this stems the obvious conclusion that we cannot safely conclude that 'Brexit' will be positive or negative for Britain's bilateral agreements.
    I would rephrase the bolded as 'there is insufficient evidence to conclude with certainty that Brexit will be positive or negative economically', then I'd agree (but the preponderance of studies from independents seem to indicate that it would be somewhat negative).
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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

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