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

Out voters call everything they don't like "project fear" watch

    Offline

    18
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    But I was clearly referring to people who dispute facts with nothing other than "I don't want to believe that".
    Clearly? I don't think a thread entitled 'People who want to leave the EU should be banned from voting' can be interpreted to mean 'people who dispute facts with nothing other than "I don't want to believe that" should be banned from voting.' Word-twisting will only get you so far, I think.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Op confirmed for cuckold
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    This **** is stupid. There's some level of uncertainty involved in leaving the EU, but whenever people (scientists, economists) make predictions, the out voters say it's wrong (because some unemployed xenophobes know more about economics than actual economists, of course) and then cry about scaremongering.

    Telling you what might happen isn't scaremongering. Is it really that difficult for you to think critically that your stupid brain shuts down whenever you're asked to evaluate some level of uncertainty? Are you only able to process facts (although, let's be honest, most of these people don't know what facts are) and having to actually think about something upsets you?

    The OECD published a study finding that the average UK household will lose £2200/year by 2020 due to an EU exit. This is an international policy organisation. Now all of these idiots are kicking off because the OECD is obviously part of a conspiracy to trick the hard-working idiots of the UK out of their money!!!! Project fear project fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And all of these armchair economists are chiming in between episodes of Eastenders to deliver their valuable analysis such as "they can't predict whats going to happen next week let alone in 14 years time" and other nuggets of intellectual wisdom.

    There are some horrifyingly stupid people in this country, and we shouldn't be having a referendum. How do people that never did A levels honestly, genuinely believe that their 5-second analysis (based on exactly nothing) is somehow right (or even valid), and an actual comprehensive economic study is wrong? How did we get here? Is it a problem with our education system?
    It's been dubbed 'Project Fear' because the main arguments being put forward by the remain camp are lots of things that could go wrong if we leave, rather than any benefits of staying. You said it yourself. Report after report about how much we hypothetically could lose if we left. Virtually nothing on the positives that the EU brings us. It's not because they're coming out and warning us about the risks of leaving, it's because all they've done is come out and warn us about the risks of leaving. I mean, the government stance is pretty much 'we don't like the EU, but it's better than the alternative'. I think the only person who's said anything (that he views as) positive about the EU is Corbyn talking about worker's rights, the environment and immigration as good things it brings us. The rest has all been scaremongering. Take Obama's intervention for instance. He didn't have anything good to say about the EU. He warned about the difficulty in finding trade deals quickly if we leave. It's a negative campaign, and has been since day one.

    With regards the rest of your post, bear in mind that pretty much every economic study's outcome is decided by the bias of those who publish it. For instance, the study you quoted is nonsensical for a whole bunch of reasons. Primarily, it's a simulation run on the assumption that we would have no form of trade deal with the EU by 2020, and no form of trade deal with anyone else by 2023. Given how much more we import than export, this seems like an incredibly pessimistic view. It also operates on the assumption (which almost all the studies to date have done, with the exception of the one published today by 'Economists for Brexit') that we would maintain the levies on imports from the rest of the world that the EU currently demands. Now all economic modelling, by definition, involves making assumptions. But I think most people would agree that those two assumptions above are daft. Not to mention that even this study doesn't actually show that we will lose £2200/household at all, because it also assumes a slowdown in population growth which leaves GDP virtually unchanged.

    Which isn't to say that there is no risk in leaving; quite the contrary, leaving is the undoubtedly the riskier option in the short term. But the reasons for large groups coming out and saying we should stay in the EU are rather more selfish than you seem to credit. The IMF and other economic bodies wants us to stay in the EU because it is highly likely that more propping up of failing European states will be required, and they want us to help foot the bill. The US and France wants us to stay in the EU because we provide a lot of the drive with regards foreign policy; the US in particular is worried that an EU without Britain would have far less drive to participate in international military events like the Syria crisis. Investors want us to stay in the EU because there is no precedent for how leaving would work in practice, which means uncertainty, which means market volatility. These people all have selfish reasons to want us to stay, they aren't saying these things for our benefit.

    Ultimately, you can spin economics to argue whatever point you so desire; you just have to make the assumptions that back up your opinion. I'm sure the 'Economists for Brexit' made some rather generous assumptions, just like the Treasury made some rather pessimistic ones. I would put little and less weight in economic modelling, cause they nearly all turn out to be wrong anyway. In the long run, the EU will either lead to an increasingly centralised state or it'll fall apart. That much is obvious. So really, the question is do you want Britain as a part of such a conglomerate? If you do, then vote remain. If you don't, then you should vote leave.

    Simples
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    If we compromise what we stand for - if we become the slightest bit less compassionate as a country because of what ISIS says - then they have won.
    Of course they have. Forget about going to Europe quietly. All they need nowadays is a fake sob story and a good pair of hiking boots.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Oh look, another over-emotional pro EU thread from yourself. If you want to put your point across, maybe you shouldn't automatically assume that all leave voters are idiots...

    Anyway, keep up the good work Mr.Enlightened.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    It's been dubbed 'Project Fear' because the main arguments being put forward by the remain camp are lots of things that could go wrong if we leave, rather than any benefits of staying. You said it yourself. Report after report about how much we hypothetically could lose if we left. Virtually nothing on the positives that the EU brings us. It's not because they're coming out and warning us about the risks of leaving, it's because all they've done is come out and warn us about the risks of leaving. I mean, the government stance is pretty much 'we don't like the EU, but it's better than the alternative'. I think the only person who's said anything (that he views as) positive about the EU is Corbyn talking about worker's rights, the environment and immigration as good things it brings us. The rest has all been scaremongering. Take Obama's intervention for instance. He didn't have anything good to say about the EU. He warned about the difficulty in finding trade deals quickly if we leave. It's a negative campaign, and has been since day one.
    We won't gain anything from staying in the EU because we have already gained all of this, and benefit continually. There are many, many positives to being in the EU, but they're all being spun as negatives, because we aren't debating joining, we're debating leaving.

    "We could lose £2200/year per household if we leave the EU" is exactly the same as "we currently gain £2200/year per household from being in the EU". Is "we currently gain £2200/year per household from being in the EU" not a positive? Every negative to leaving the EU is a positive to being in it. People are just choosing to interpret it negatively.

    With regards the rest of your post, bear in mind that pretty much every economic study's outcome is decided by the bias of those who publish it. For instance, the study you quoted is nonsensical for a whole bunch of reasons. Primarily, it's a simulation run on the assumption that we would have no form of trade deal with the EU by 2020, and no form of trade deal with anyone else by 2023. Given how much more we import than export, this seems like an incredibly pessimistic view. It also operates on the assumption (which almost all the studies to date have done, with the exception of the one published today by 'Economists for Brexit' that we would maintain the levies on imports from the rest of the world that the EU currently demands. Now all economic modelling, by definition, involves making assumptions. But I think most people would agree that those two assumptions above are daft. Not to mention that even this study doesn't actually show that we will lose £2200/household at all, because it also assumes a slowdown in population growth which leaves GDP virtually unchanged.

    Which isn't to say that there is no risk in leaving; quite the contrary, leaving is the undoubtedly the riskier option in the short term. But the reasons for large groups coming out and saying we should stay in the EU are rather more selfish than you seem to credit. The IMF and other economic bodies wants us to stay in the EU because it is highly likely that more propping up of failing European states will be required, and they want us to help foot the bill. The US and France wants us to stay in the EU because we provide a lot of the drive with regards foreign policy; the US in particular is worried that an EU without Britain would have far less drive to participate in international military events like the Syria crisis. Investors want us to stay in the EU because there is no precedent for how leaving would work in practice, which means uncertainty, which means market volatility. These people all have selfish reasons to want us to stay, they aren't saying these things for our benefit.

    Ultimately, you can spin economics to argue whatever point you so desire; you just have to make the assumptions that back up your opinion. I'm sure the 'Economists for Brexit' made some rather generous assumptions, just like the Treasury made some rather pessimistic ones. I would put little and less weight in economic modelling, cause they nearly all turn out to be wrong anyway. In the long run, the EU will either lead to an increasingly centralised state or it'll fall apart. That much is obvious. So really, the question is do you want Britain as a part of such a conglomerate? If you do, then vote remain. If you don't, then you should vote leave.

    Simples

    This is a very, very well-made point and I don't think I can argue with it. I still believe that people dismissing economic research without any thought whatsoever are ridiculous, but you've convinced me at least that the economic argument isn't as strong or as certain as I thought it was.

    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    Of course they have. Forget about going to Europe quietly. All they need nowadays is a fake sob story and a good pair of hiking boots.
    You've been telling us about all these jihadis for months, and yet they still haven't arrived. Funnily enough, the only terrorist attacks recently have been carried out by lifelong Europeans. So when are ISIS meant to be getting here?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    We won't gain anything from staying in the EU because we have already gained all of this, and benefit continually. There are many, many positives to being in the EU, but they're all being spun as negatives, because we aren't debating joining, we're debating leaving.

    "We could lose £2200/year per household if we leave the EU" is exactly the same as "we currently gain £2200/year per household from being in the EU". Is "we currently gain £2200/year per household from being in the EU" not a positive? Every negative to leaving the EU is a positive to being in it. People are just choosing to interpret it negatively.




    This is a very, very well-made point and I don't think I can argue with it. I still believe that people dismissing economic research without any thought whatsoever are ridiculous, but you've convinced me at least that the economic argument isn't as strong or as certain as I thought it was.



    You've been telling us about all these jihadis for months, and yet they still haven't arrived. Funnily enough, the only terrorist attacks recently have been carried out by lifelong Europeans. So when are ISIS meant to be getting here?
    You really need to start reading up the news babe. Lifelong Europeans who support ISIS carried them out yes. Police in Germany have had countless tipoffs that migrants are ISIS supporters. But it was reported at the start of the migrant crisis that jihadis coming as refugees would come to Europe.

    Wasn't one of the terrorists in Paris doing just that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    We won't gain anything from staying in the EU because we have already gained all of this, and benefit continually. There are many, many positives to being in the EU, but they're all being spun as negatives, because we aren't debating joining, we're debating leaving.

    "We could lose £2200/year per household if we leave the EU" is exactly the same as "we currently gain £2200/year per household from being in the EU". Is "we currently gain £2200/year per household from being in the EU" not a positive? Every negative to leaving the EU is a positive to being in it. People are just choosing to interpret it negatively.
    You're right in that putting forwards the benefits of maintaining the status quo is slightly harder, in that we would already have received said benefits. But that isn't why I think it's being dubbed 'Project Fear'. It's things like what Obama said, coming out and making some vague threat of no fast-tracked trade deal if we left the EU. It's scaremongering, because we all know that every nation will be fast-tracking a trade deal with the UK cause it's (I think) the 5th largest economy in the world. Of course the US would prioritise a trade deal with us over one with vanuatu. That's the sort of thing I consider scaremongering.

    It isn't fair to accuse the remain campaign of scaremongering when they raise legitimate, verifiable risks (reduced investment and a weaker pound in the short term would be fair risks to point out); but when they come out with stuff like the £2200/household figure, the 6% shrink in the economy, or Obama claiming we won't have trade deals for years and years, I think that can reasonably be considered a campaign that is built largely on fear.

    Ironically, I don't think it does the remain campaign any favours. If they want us to vote to stay, they should be championing all the things they think the EU contributes. Never saying anything good about the cause you're supporting, makes you come across as though you haven't got anything good to say. And the whole attitude around the Tory support for staying, that the EU is a bit naff but leaving would be worse, it just doesn't come across very positive. Theresa May slamming the ECHR is a prime example. The ones campaigning to stay don't seem to particularly like the institution they're defending, which by definition makes their campaign rather negative. Especially when leaving the ECHR could quite possibly cost us our EU membership anyway!


    (Original post by JordanL_)
    This is a very, very well-made point and I don't think I can argue with it. I still believe that people dismissing economic research without any thought whatsoever are ridiculous, but you've convinced me at least that the economic argument isn't as strong or as certain as I thought it was.
    Thank you You're right, dismissing economic data out of hand is ridiculous. I get rather annoyed when the leave campaign say there will be no adverse affects to our economy in the short term whatsoever. I mean, that is rubbish. I don't think our trade will necessarily take much of a hit, but investors will shy away from the UK somewhat until the dust settles and the pound will take a hit. Denying this makes the leave campaign look clueless to anyone who has any economic literacy. Honestly, economic models - especially those that are trying to forecast scenarios without precedent - are worse than useless. They not only give us no real insight into the future, they end up misleading people.

    I applaud you for giving a reasoned response too. The typical response to an opposing opinion on a contentious subject would be a foaming-at-the-mouth enraged slandering, so congratulations on being better than 99% of other people on here :clap2:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    You really need to start reading up the news babe. Lifelong Europeans who support ISIS carried them out yes. Police in Germany have had countless tipoffs that migrants are ISIS supporters. But it was reported at the start of the migrant crisis that jihadis coming as refugees would come to Europe.

    Wasn't one of the terrorists in Paris doing just that?
    Do you have a source? I haven't heard about that. I only know that the leaders of both the Paris and Brussels attacks were born and lived in Brussels.


    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    You're right in that putting forwards the benefits of maintaining the status quo is slightly harder, in that we would already have received said benefits. But that isn't why I think it's being dubbed 'Project Fear'. It's things like what Obama said, coming out and making some vague threat of no fast-tracked trade deal if we left the EU. It's scaremongering, because we all know that every nation will be fast-tracking a trade deal with the UK cause it's (I think) the 5th largest economy in the world. Of course the US would prioritise a trade deal with us over one with vanuatu. That's the sort of thing I consider scaremongering.

    It isn't fair to accuse the remain campaign of scaremongering when they raise legitimate, verifiable risks (reduced investment and a weaker pound in the short term would be fair risks to point out); but when they come out with stuff like the £2200/household figure, the 6% shrink in the economy, or Obama claiming we won't have trade deals for years and years, I think that can reasonably be considered a campaign that is built largely on fear.
    I agree with this, except for your point about Obama. I'm fairly sure that he actually said we'd be a much lower priority for trade deals - a lower priority than the EU, for example. That makes a lot of sense.

    Ironically, I don't think it does the remain campaign any favours. If they want us to vote to stay, they should be championing all the things they think the EU contributes. Never saying anything good about the cause you're supporting, makes you come across as though you haven't got anything good to say. And the whole attitude around the Tory support for staying, that the EU is a bit naff but leaving would be worse, it just doesn't come across very positive. Theresa May slamming the ECHR is a prime example. The ones campaigning to stay don't seem to particularly like the institution they're defending, which by definition makes their campaign rather negative. Especially when leaving the ECHR could quite possibly cost us our EU membership anyway!
    I agree. I despise the Tories anyway, and Theresa May's feelings toward the ECHR are terrifying, but I do think they're doing more harm than good. There's a lot that the EU can be praised for (environmental protection, consumer and workers rights, the ERDF) but a lot of it seems opposed to the Tories' own policies or ideals, and they'd be hypocrites for acknowledging it.


    I applaud you for giving a reasoned response too. The typical response to an opposing opinion on a contentious subject would be a foaming-at-the-mouth enraged slandering, so congratulations on being better than 99% of other people on here :clap2:
    I think I'm guilty of giving that type of response sometimes but thank you!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Op at it again attacking leave voters
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RollerBall)
    We need the EU far more than they need us.
    Since the UK has a massive trade deficit with the EU, I beg to differ.

    Without British tourists and pensioners, the Spanish economy would collapse and lead to another debt crisis - this time of another dimension. I'm pretty sure that the EU will not retaliate and will rapidly seek an arrangement to ensure that British investments in the EU remain the same.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _icecream)
    Op at it again attacking leave voters
    OP is a tiresome child who hasn't been taught humility or moderation. Unfortunately this makes the forum less pleasant for everyone on either side.

    (Original post by infairverona)
    I'm not sure what A levels, or lack thereof, has to do with Brexit at all...
    The relevance is that OP is currently doing his A levels, and seems to have formed the opinion that this makes him some kind of ivory tower intellectual.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Both sides are doing it.

    The biggest problem with this entire issue is nobody knows. Everybody's guessing.

    Inners are saying "oh, if we leave, x will happen" - but they don't know. They're guessing. Nobody knows what will happen because nobody's done it before.

    Outers are then saying "if we stay, x will happen" - but they don't know either.

    Both sides are full of it. That's what OP fails to even recognise, let alone acknowledge.

    Anybody saying they have definitive answers is lying out of their backside. That's why I think OP is a prize goon.
    I think the outcome - positive or negative - of Brexit would depend on the ability of the British Government to pass a lot of innovative legislation in a short amount of time.

    This is something that is surprisingly never discussed. Debates about the outcome of Brexit have so far always considered that the legislation would remain steady - apart from an hypothetical "trade deal" with the EU - whilst the Government will have to make dozens - if not hundreds - of new laws about every sector of the economy.

    If I were British, I would lean towards leaving, but the current division among the Conservatives, added to their lack of imagination since they have been in charge, would make me hesitate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    OP is a tiresome child who hasn't been taught humility or moderation. Unfortunately this makes the forum less pleasant for everyone on either side.

    The relevance is that OP is currently doing his A levels, and seems to have formed the opinion that this makes him some kind of ivory tower intellectual.
    What lol? I already said I'm not qualified to form my own opinion on the matter, so I agree with the evidence as presented. I don't really understand how accepting the expert consensus and not trying to challenge it when I have no idea what I'm talking about is lacking in humility. Maybe you could explain?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    What lol? I already said I'm not qualified to form my own opinion on the matter, so I agree with the evidence as presented. I don't really understand how accepting the expert consensus and not trying to challenge it when I have no idea what I'm talking about is lacking in humility. Maybe you could explain?
    Yes, and you now appear to have conceded that you are not even able to interpret this study with any clarity, let alone authority.

    And yet you feel it is appropriate to spew invective at anyone who does not wholly agree with you on the matter of the EU referendum.

    Even where you might have valid points to make, they would be lost within your vicious insults and shrill hyperboles, which set the tone to such a degree as to disrupt everyone else's discussions, too. This is evident in the fact that I am far from the only poster who has ended up commenting on your poor behaviour rather than the matter at hand, and that's just in this thread.

    I am trying not to speak too strongly, because I do not like the idea of picking on a misguided sixth former, but you really need to realise that, in your present habits, you are impressing no-one, endearing yourself to no-one, and contributing nothing of any value.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yes, and you now appear to have conceded that you are not even able to interpret this study with any clarity, let alone authority.

    And yet you feel it is appropriate to spew invective at anyone who does not wholly agree with you on the matter of the EU referendum.

    Even where you might have valid points to make, they would be lost within your vicious insults and shrill hyperboles, which set the tone to such a degree as to disrupt everyone else's discussions, too. This is evident in the fact that I am far from the only poster who has ended up commenting on your poor behaviour rather than the matter at hand, and that's just in this thread.

    I am trying not to speak too strongly, because I do not like the idea of picking on a misguided sixth former, but you really need to realise that, in your present habits, you are impressing no-one, endearing yourself to no-one, and contributing nothing of any value.
    I never claimed to be able to interpret the study in the first place. I said that a single-sentence dismissal of scientific research from people who haven't read anything about that research is ridiculous, and their opinions should be invalid. I've NEVER dismissed evidence that I don't understand, I've always accepted when I don't know enough to comment on something, and you're more than welcome to lambaste me if I ever do otherwise.

    It's hardly hyperbole to suggest that people who know absolutely nothing about something shouldn't challenge an expert consensus, is it? Maybe if people were more willing to point out when someone has no idea what they're talking about, rather than keeping quiet so as to not offend, the world wouldn't be full of homo/xenophobes, anti-vaxxers, climate-change deniers and other DANGEROUS people. Because yes, we live in a democracy, where the uninformed masses make all of the decisions, and it's somehow taboo to let people know how uninformed they really are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yes, and you now appear to have conceded that you are not even able to interpret this study with any clarity, let alone authority.

    And yet you feel it is appropriate to spew invective at anyone who does not wholly agree with you on the matter of the EU referendum.

    Even where you might have valid points to make, they would be lost within your vicious insults and shrill hyperboles, which set the tone to such a degree as to disrupt everyone else's discussions, too. This is evident in the fact that I am far from the only poster who has ended up commenting on your poor behaviour rather than the matter at hand, and that's just in this thread.

    I am trying not to speak too strongly, because I do not like the idea of picking on a misguided sixth former, but you really need to realise that, in your present habits, you are impressing no-one, endearing yourself to no-one, and contributing nothing of any value.
    Okay, I'll admit that I've been vitriolic recently, in this thread and others. I completely stand by the point I was making, but I didn't make it very well. I guess I lost my patience? I'll take a break.

    Apologies to everyone affected.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    This **** is stupid. There's some level of uncertainty involved in leaving the EU, but whenever people (scientists, economists) make predictions, the out voters say it's wrong (because some unemployed xenophobes know more about economics than actual economists, of course) and then cry about scaremongering.

    Telling you what might happen isn't scaremongering. Is it really that difficult for you to think critically that your stupid brain shuts down whenever you're asked to evaluate some level of uncertainty? Are you only able to process facts (although, let's be honest, most of these people don't know what facts are) and having to actually think about something upsets you?

    The OECD published a study finding that the average UK household will lose £2200/year by 2020 due to an EU exit. This is an international policy organisation. Now all of these idiots are kicking off because the OECD is obviously part of a conspiracy to trick the hard-working idiots of the UK out of their money!!!! Project fear project fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And all of these armchair economists are chiming in between episodes of Eastenders to deliver their valuable analysis such as "they can't predict whats going to happen next week let alone in 14 years time" and other nuggets of intellectual wisdom.

    There are some horrifyingly stupid people in this country, and we shouldn't be having a referendum. How do people that never did A levels honestly, genuinely believe that their 5-second analysis (based on exactly nothing) is somehow right (or even valid), and an actual comprehensive economic study is wrong? How did we get here? Is it a problem with our education system?
    And what about the historian and idea xenophobia who fear points of view, like Ken Livingston's discussion about whether Hitler was a Zionist. These idea xenophobia are limiting free speech, limiting thought and inquest and limiting people's natural rights to their own opinions and speech.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    This **** is stupid. There's some level of uncertainty involved in leaving the EU, but whenever people (scientists, economists) make predictions, the out voters say it's wrong (because some unemployed xenophobes know more about economics than actual economists, of course) and then cry about scaremongering.

    Telling you what might happen isn't scaremongering. Is it really that difficult for you to think critically that your stupid brain shuts down whenever you're asked to evaluate some level of uncertainty? Are you only able to process facts (although, let's be honest, most of these people don't know what facts are) and having to actually think about something upsets you?

    The OECD published a study finding that the average UK household will lose £2200/year by 2020 due to an EU exit. This is an international policy organisation. Now all of these idiots are kicking off because the OECD is obviously part of a conspiracy to trick the hard-working idiots of the UK out of their money!!!! Project fear project fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And all of these armchair economists are chiming in between episodes of Eastenders to deliver their valuable analysis such as "they can't predict whats going to happen next week let alone in 14 years time" and other nuggets of intellectual wisdom.

    There are some horrifyingly stupid people in this country, and we shouldn't be having a referendum. How do people that never did A levels honestly, genuinely believe that their 5-second analysis (based on exactly nothing) is somehow right (or even valid), and an actual comprehensive economic study is wrong? How did we get here? Is it a problem with our education system?
    Calling people you don't agree with stupid is not going to win you any favours, JordanL. People have legitimate fears about the EU and letting them voice their opinion is important. You're accusing the 'Leave' campaign of scaremongering (on a regular basis) but fail to see the flaws in either the 'In' campaign or in the EU itself. This entire discussion lacks any civility and rather than basing it on facts, both sides are just attempting to place labels on their opponent.

    It's equally worrying that you are suggesting that a referendum should not be held. You are suggesting that people should not have the right to voice their opinion and that in itself is the very definition of fascism.

    For a nation that has done so much for democracy, it's sad to see what it's becoming.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Since the UK has a massive trade deficit with the EU, I beg to differ.

    Without British tourists and pensioners, the Spanish economy would collapse and lead to another debt crisis - this time of another dimension. I'm pretty sure that the EU will not retaliate and will rapidly seek an arrangement to ensure that British investments in the EU remain the same.
    First of all, that trade deficit would fall considerably if, as forcasts are saying on both sides, the £ drops to approx 1/.9 with the euro.

    Secondly; read: http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-br...u#.VyNSZHrDt3U

    I really don't get where everyone thinks the EU would be falling over backwards to make a trade deal, unless you think we live in the 18th century and all of our trade is in goods?

    Your second point is a joke, right? If they are so important to the Spanish economy, do you not think they would granted permission to stay? You reckon that the Spanish economy is being propped up by British tourists and immigrants, then if we leave the EU they will kick them all out, and according to your logic tank their own economy? Come on.

    EDIT: Nobody in the EU really gives a **** if we leave (despite the arrogance of the British public), look at some of the european papers, or the EU paper.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 3, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.