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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Open a Spread Betting account (CMC and IG are both good) and you'll soon fine out.

    Keep your books on the "efficient market hypothesis" well to hand because you'll need those.

    They'll be really useful...
    Spread betting lol. Think I'd outscore you at a test on how the markets work . Bet you use all the trend channels, ascending triangles, and other stuff
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    I guess your economic points all come down to whether or not the EU provides a net economic benefit. Heck, if it didn't I'm not sure there would be many people on the Remain side of the campaign! The markets, credible financial institutions, business leaders, and hundreds of economists say that it does. Any conjecture about being 'stronger economically' outside the EU is highly presumptuous. We know at the moment, that we are stronger economically today, inside the EU, versus on June 25th, if we left.

    With regards to democracy, I think this comes down entirely to immigration for the ordinary person. Why? Because no Joe Bloggs Leaver can tell you which EU policies directly harm him as a consumer. The reality is that most help him, with safety etc. Since I'm fine with the current state of immigration given it has to be weighed up against the economy, that's why I'm on the remain side.

    Of course, the politicians want greater democracy so they can set laws themselves, but I couldn't care less. The current set of laws for consumers works perfectly fine for me.
    I think immigration can be a bit of a sidetrack though. Out of the Leave voters I know personally and have spoken to:

    One is voting because she thinks it's unfair the EU is discriminating in favour of European workers and against people from Africa and elsewhere.
    One is voting because she voted in last time believing the EU was just a free trade deal, and thinks she was misled.
    One is voting because he wants a political shake-up, he's concerned about T-TIP taking over, and he thinks the EU's got too much power.

    Out of those three only one cares about immigration, and not for the reasons you might think.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    And yet you allude to it being just that, as do many others.
    Well I've clarified it for you that I don't think that.

    The issues are that the counter-arguments "unelected House of Lords" and "unelected monarchy & process of Royal Assent" are not valid/invalid.

    The House of Lords is a revision chamber that can only delay non-finance-based legislation; not a priority at the moment.
    Royal Assent has a history of being just a formality; it hasn't not been given/granted since like 1708. (Can't remember exact date [year.])
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    I guess your economic points all come down to whether or not the EU provides a net economic benefit. Heck, if it didn't I'm not sure there would be many people on the Remain side of the campaign! The markets, credible financial institutions, business leaders, and hundreds of economists say that it does. Any conjecture about being 'stronger economically' outside the EU is highly presumptuous. We know at the moment, that we are stronger economically today, inside the EU, versus on June 25th, if we left.

    With regards to democracy, I think this comes down entirely to immigration for the ordinary person. Why? Because no Joe Bloggs Leaver can tell you which EU policies directly harm him as a consumer. The reality is that most help him, with safety etc. Since I'm fine with the current state of immigration given it has to be weighed up against the economy, that's why I'm on the remain side.

    Of course, the politicians want greater democracy so they can set laws themselves, but I couldn't care less. The current set of laws for consumers works perfectly fine for me.
    But long-term how can you be certain either way?

    You can call both of our stuff conjecture, but you think you're right, and I think I'm right.

    (There might be a link tax...)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnnieGakusei)
    I think immigration can be a bit of a sidetrack though. Out of the Leave voters I know personally and have spoken to:

    One is voting because she thinks it's unfair the EU is discriminating in favour of European workers and against people from Africa and elsewhere.
    One is voting because she voted in last time believing the EU was just a free trade deal, and thinks she was misled.
    One is voting because he wants a political shake-up, he's concerned about T-TIP taking over, and he thinks the EU's got too much power.

    Out of those three only one cares about immigration, and not for the reasons you might think.
    Fair enough. Sounds like those people have genuine arguments, although the second one is obviously a little shallow - have to deal with the merits/demerits at present rather than past principles.

    I don't think it's wrong to say that the a significant proportion of Leave voters care quite a lot about the state of immigration.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Change of course causes uncertainty, but change is short-term, and we'll recover a stronger economy and more principled country.
    Except of course there's no evidence at all that the economy with be stronger nor is there any good reason to believe that British politics will ever be more 'principled' than the EU.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Well I've clarified it for you that I don't think that.

    The issues are that the counter-arguments "unelected House of Lords" and "unelected monarchy & process of Royal Assent" are not valid/invalid.

    The House of Lords is a revision chamber that can only delay non-finance-based legislation; not a priority at the moment.
    Royal Assent has a history of being just a formality; it hasn't not been given/granted since like 1708. (Can't remember exact date [year.])
    This is so ironic. You allow explanations, clarifications, and counter arguments to the undemocratic aspects of the UK, and yet with the EU it's a one-way street. E.g. that MEPs have to vote something through and they are elected is completely irrelevant, is it? Because muh council wasn't elected. Well it was, each member states appoints a member of their choosing, don't like yours, vote for a different party so they can appoint someone else.

    I won't argue with someone who goes about it with false information, blindness, and double standards.

    Anyway, at the end of the day, you are just a selfish nationalist. I almost want you to leave just so we are rid of people like you, except that would be unfair to all those who can actually think, who aren't into isolationism.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    Can you provide a link for the investment banks saying it's not a problem? Or a news article or something to that effect?
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referend...ves-eu-1565186
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Except of course there's no evidence at all that the economy with be stronger nor is there any good reason to believe that British politics will ever be more 'principled' than the EU.
    Hmm...

    The same can be applied to yours.
    (And don't bring up the short-term effects of change.)

    Of course it does! (With regards to principles.)

    Gotta go; got an exam to do and places to be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    But long-term how can you be certain either way?

    You can call both of our stuff conjecture, but you think you're right, and I think I'm right.

    (There might be a link tax...)
    I've made that point on other threads . You said that we would be stronger outside the EU. That's a statement that can't be proved true.

    All I've said is that, the only certainty is that we will be worse off economically in the short-term. Many businesses have already talked about shifting staff in some cases to mainland Europe, and the uncertainty will act to cut investment rates.

    So, versus staying in EU, we will have, from leaving:
    - A decidedly negative short-term impact.
    - An unknown long-term impact.
    That's not exactly what I would call a compelling economic case for leaving.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    Fair enough. Sounds like those people have genuine arguments, although the second one is obviously a little shallow - have to deal with the merits/demerits at present rather than past principles.

    I don't think it's wrong to say that the a significant proportion of Leave voters care quite a lot about the state of immigration.
    That's fair. I think the second point is still reasonable though. If you vote for something and it turns out to be something you didn't want, it's not unreasonable to want to vote to leave again.

    The issue with immigration of course is that unless you're voting Leave purely because you want control over the borders, your logic is flawed. We need immigration. Leaving the EU isn't going to stop it because we need it.

    So for anyone voting with racist intentions (as is frequently put out by the Remain campaign as some means of discrediting the Leave camp) it's going to backfire because we're going to lose a fair few (usually white) Poles, Germans etc. and potentially get more people from India, China, African countries, and the Middle East. I'd personally like to see some more of that, assuming they're here on merit rather than nationality (which is the major reason I'm not so sure about the EU, considering its positive discrimination against Europeans).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    This is so ironic. You allow explanations, clarifications, and counter arguments to the undemocratic aspects of the UK, and yet with the EU it's a one-way street. E.g. that MEPs have to vote something through and they are elected is completely irrelevant, is it? Because muh council wasn't elected. Well it was, each member states appoints a member of their choosing, don't like yours, vote for a different party so they can appoint someone else.

    I won't argue with someone who goes about it with false information, blindness, and double standards.

    Anyway, at the end of the day, you are just a selfish nationalist. I almost want you to leave just so we are rid of people like you, except that would be unfair to all those who can actually think, who aren't into isolationism.
    This doesn't remove the fact that the UK's best interests can be vetoed though... We can basically be shouted down and forced into accepting legislation that's going to benefit another country at our expense.

    For the record I don't think the UK is democratic either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Ok thanks, so that's not an example. You may be a little confused due to terminology.

    The view was echoed by their counterparts at JP Morgan, who indicated the impact of a Brexit would be harsher on European companies than it would be on British firms. "Brexit remains a clear concern, but the pound is a natural hedge for UK stocks, with 72% of sales derived from abroad," they said.

    Investment banks use outperform to represent a better performance versus peers, but in reality, outperform can apply to UK equities declining say 10% and European equities declining 20%. That's a very negative scenario, as they later make clear, but the fact we have our own currency may lessen the blow.

    That's strictly not a case for economic benefits to be derived from outside the EU, or the investment bank saying that we're fine if we leave. You will struggle to find any investment bank who will say that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    Ok thanks, so that's not an example. You may be a little confused due to terminology.

    The view was echoed by their counterparts at JP Morgan, who indicated the impact of a Brexit would be harsher on European companies than it would be on British firms. "Brexit remains a clear concern, but the pound is a natural hedge for UK stocks, with 72% of sales derived from abroad," they said.

    Investment banks use outperform to represent a better performance versus peers, but in reality, outperform can apply to UK equities declining say 10% and European equities declining 20%. That's a very negative scenario, as they later make clear, but the fact we have our own currency may lessen the blow.

    That's strictly not a case for economic benefits to be derived from outside the EU, or the investment bank saying that we're fine if we leave. You will struggle to find any investment bank who will say that.
    Someone hasn't read the entire article
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helloworld_95)
    Someone hasn't read the entire article
    Yes I did, Hargreaves Lansdowne is not an IB and say that the impacts may not be 'as negative' as expected - it's mere suggestion that the market acts in different ways to the consensus.

    Comes back to the point that no-one knows, but yet again you have not provided proof of an IB saying there will be no impact/positive impact.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Except of course there's no evidence at all that the economy with be stronger nor is there any good reason to believe that British politics will ever be more 'principled' than the EU.
    We did OK governing ourselves in the thousand years between 1066 and 1971.

    There were a few ups and downs obviously, but over the period we managed to become the first nation in the world to industrialise, making us the richest country on earth, with the largest Empire the world had ever seen.

    So I think we have it in us to govern ourselves pretty well and prosper economically without instruction from a drunken Jean Claude Juncker.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU

    Don't you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    We did OK governing ourselves in the thousand years between 1066 and 1971.

    There were a few ups and downs obviously, but over the period we managed to become the first nation in the world to industrialise, making us the richest country on earth, with the largest Empire the world had ever seen.

    So I think we have it in us to govern ourselves pretty well and prosper economically without instruction from a drunken Jean Claude Juncker.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU

    Don't you?
    That's such a laughable appeal to patriotism. Everything has changed since 1066 and even 1971, political powers have been dispersed, other economies have become stronger and more developed. We have zero chance of getting back to this 'larger empire' that you speak of and we don't have the same scope to do so in the modern world.

    Things change all the time, and more permanently. Remember when Nokia was the mobile phone superpower of the world? Yeah that didn't end out too well. The UK used to be driving force, it's not any more, and appealing to past events for future precedent in this case is entirely useless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    We did OK governing ourselves in the thousand years between 1066 and 1971.

    There were a few ups and downs obviously, but over the period we managed to become the first nation in the world to industrialise, making us the richest country on earth, with the largest Empire the world had ever seen.

    So I think we have it in us to govern ourselves pretty well and prosper economically without instruction from a drunken Jean Claude Juncker.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU

    Don't you?
    do you really want the sheep in the house of commons governing us more, lmao
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnnieGakusei)
    This doesn't remove the fact that the UK's best interests can be vetoed though... We can basically be shouted down and forced into accepting legislation that's going to benefit another country at our expense.

    For the record I don't think the UK is democratic either.
    How often has that happened? Nothing stops the UK parliament from doing stuff that directly harms one county and benefits others.

    We are a European community. If everyone gets all hot and bothered when once in a while the majority does something that they don't like, we might as well all **** off again, and have another war soon.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by generallee)
    Leave: 46% (+3)Remain: 39% (-3)Don’t Know: 11% (nc)Would Not Vote: 4% (nc)

    Source: Guido Fawkes website

    Yesssss!! We can really do this guys!
    Online polls are funny, they only put pressure on certain people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources
  • 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.