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

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Not necessarily. If our economy takes a hit there'll be less houses being built, so supply will go down with demand.
    I don't think you quite understand the concept of supply and demand... :erm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael3C)
    I don't think you quite understand the concept of supply and demand... :erm:
    Maybe you'd like to explain what I don't understand?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    If the supply of houses were to go down with the demand for housing, where is your issue?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Michael3C)
    If the supply of houses were to go down with the demand for housing, where is your issue?
    Because there is the matter of how they change too. If we take it to a slight extreme and suppose the supply of a product is 50, but the demand is 100, if that demand dropped to 10 a supply drop to 40 would still cause prices to crash, even though the supply still fell

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    OK you've now changed your argument to try and apply logistics which do not match up with the reality we live in with the UK housing market. You have created a mental scenario, in short.

    EDIT: sorry just realised you were the initial poster and you simply changed his argument.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Michael3C)
    OK you've now changed your argument to try and apply logistics which do not match up with the reality we live in with the UK housing market.
    Prove to us then the demand will be dropping proportionally no more than supply, and we shall assume the supply remaining proportional to demand has no effect on prices (something that cannot necessarily be taken for granted).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Where have I made such an argument though? You seem to be working yourself up into a right state lol

    As for proving the future to you, sadly I am not Mystic Meg. However we can all go back and look at the history of the housing market to factually say your weird scenario has never happened and hold an intelligent assumption that it will not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You !might want to approach Cameron for a job, you make him look sensible and well informed on the matter.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree the guys a joke, those 'facts' are lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael3C)
    Where have I made such an argument though? You seem to be working yourself up into a right state lol

    As for proving the future to you, sadly I am not Mystic Meg. However we can all go back and look at the history of the housing market to factually say your weird scenario has never happened and hold an intelligent assumption that it will not.
    Aren't you though? One of your shining arguments is that in the future Brussels will take more and more control and at some point Britain will be ruled by Brussels. That's your scary vision, Meg.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Quote where I have said this, or even implied it.

    Nice dodge of the argument you created by the way, just hurling out random words like a mad man
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael3C)
    Quote where I have said this, or even implied it.

    Nice dodge of the argument you created by the way, just hurling out random words like a mad man
    I do not know if that is what you personally have written on here. But it is something that multiple people of the Leave campaign propagate.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, I thought you said it was one of "my shining arguments". Silly me, why ever did I think that.

    And sidebar: are you claiming the EU isn't taking more and more control?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Point proven, by now Mike.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Two dodges?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I never said that. I said we get a large portion back of what we put in.
    Misleading. We get half of what we put in back, and are told how to spend that money with signs up saying "Thank the EU"!!!. The net contribution is £billions which is not a good deal, so you aren't going to win the EU argument on that.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    We also receive money directly and indirectly in the form of various subsidies and grants. A huge amount of research funding in the UK comes from the European Budget. We also get to benefit from scientific developments made in other countries that couldn't happen without that funding.
    Those subsidies are included in the money we get back, you make it sound like they are separate: misleading. As we are NET contributors, we can still pay for all those things, and have £billions left over to invest in whatever the public decides. And scientific developments are not shared within the EU, they are shared globally. The ESA is not part of the EU, it is a good example of cooperation between EU countries.


    (Original post by JordanL_)
    We also benefit hugely in economic terms. 15% of our GDP is from EU exports, which far outweighs what we put into the EU. (15% of our GDP is £300 billion).
    15% - exactly! With a declining market. Trade with the EU would continue when we leave, but we will be able to do it with the rest of the world a lot lot more, and regain our WTO seat.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    15% - exactly! With a declining market. Trade with the EU would continue when we leave, but we will be able to do it with the rest of the world a lot lot more, and regain our WTO seat.
    It's actually 12% and 70% of that 12% is covered tariff free under WTO rules


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    Misleading. We get half of what we put in back, and are told how to spend that money with signs up saying "Thank the EU"!!!. The net contribution is £billions which is not a good deal, so you aren't going to win the EU argument on that.
    Not true. We get a £5 billion rebate which we can spend however we choose. We then get another £4.5 billion which the EU tells us how to spend. Whichever way you try to spin it, "we pay £350 million a week to the EU" is a lie, and we get back a large portion of what we put in.


    Those subsidies are included in the money we get back, you make it sound like they are separate: misleading. As we are NET contributors, we can still pay for all those things, and have £billions left over to invest in whatever the public decides. And scientific developments are not shared within the EU, they are shared globally. The ESA is not part of the EU, it is a good example of cooperation between EU countries.
    By contributing to the EU's research budget, we're quite possibly gaining more scientifically than we would by putting that money into our own country. I'd rather the money goes to where it does the most good. Same for climate change - it's a global issue, and £1 million might reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Poland more than it would reduce them here, for example. Even agriculture subsidies, regional aid and education spending in other countries benefits us. We're part of a single market, and growth in one country is growth for all of us.


    15% - exactly! With a declining market. Trade with the EU would continue when we leave, but we will be able to do it with the rest of the world a lot lot more, and regain our WTO seat.
    You say that as if 15% is insignificant. It's an absolutely massive portion of our GDP.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SW19!)
    Hi JordanL. As you're a firm advocate of staying in the EU, would you mind sharing your views on a few concerns I have regarding EU membership? I'm only going to highlight four of my personal concerns although there are many.

    1. Are you aware of the destruction of the UK fishing industry? Thousands of our fishermen have lost their jobs and businesses as a direct result of our EU membership. It was very interesting to see Elizabeth Truss on Question Time last week defending the EU on this topic by declaring "but the oceans are for everyone". I find it disgusting frankly that the UK Environment Secretary and one of your fellow Europhiles would put Europeans ahead of her own people.

    2. I worry about the rapidly rising UK population. Net migration from the EU to the UK for 2015 is 184,000. We currently have no control over this. Do you ever consider that the simple law of mathematics says that these numbers are too high for a country of our size and infrastructure? Are you able to provide a figure of what you feel would be the UK maximum population before the complete breakdown of our public services? Nobody in Remain has ever stated a figure.

    3. I worry when I hear the leaders of other countries making thinly veiled threats at our country. Angela Merkel has recently become rather hostile in her comments towards the UK. Moreover the French president Francois Hollande stated publicly that he doesn't want the UK to leave the EU as he doesn't want "London becoming too powerful". Do these type of comments from fellow EU members concern you?

    4. You seem very confident in the UK economy while we're in the EU. Would you therefore be in favour of joining the Eurozone? If not, why not?

    I'm really interested to hear your views on these subjects, many thanks.
    Hi, I'd be happy to share my views!

    1. I'm aware of this, but I think it's unfair to blame it solely on the EU. British commercial fishing productivity has declined by 94% over the last 118 years, and it's a trend that started long before the Common Fisheries Policy was implemented (1970). This is due to the depletion of fish populations as a result of overfishing. The core of the problem isn't the EU telling us where we can fish or how many fish we can catch, it's that there aren't enough fish left. People often blame the Common Fisheries Policy for the depletion of fish stocks, but as you can see in the link above, they were in decline for decades before the CFP existed. It was inevitable that we'd get to a point where fish stocks were depleted, and the British fishing industry would be damaged severely as a result, but this was already happening. Maybe the Common Fisheries Policy contributed to it, I don't know, but it's definitely not the cause - it was going to happen either way.

    The CFP was introduced partly with the aim of protecting fish populations. The Total Allowable Catch of each species is determined yearly, based on consultation with a scientific committee, and then each country is given quotas based on a percentage of the TAC. Our quota is small because the TAC is small, and the TAC is small because the fish stocks are depleted. The CFP provides regulation on various specifics such as net mesh size, all designed to allow the fish populations to replenish.

    I honestly believe that, in the long run, the British fishing industry will be better-off because of this. The CFP is allowing fish stocks to replenish. As populations grow, our quotas will grow. It's a slow process, but the fishing industry will recover as fish populations recover. It was inevitable, and we'd be having the same problem even if we'd never joined the EU. You can view the 2015 fish quotas here. The UK already receives the large majority of haddock, mackerel, lemon sole, and cod. This includes from non-British waters. So I think, if we were to leave the EU and keep the fish for ourselves, it'd make very little difference. Again, the problem is overfishing depleting populations, and the Common Fisheries Policy is dealing with that.

    2. I don't think there really is a maximum number, at least one that we're close to reaching. The UK is ranked 51st in the world for population density, behind the Netherlands, South Korea, Belgium and Japan. I do worry about our public services, because it'd be wrong to argue that they're not struggling, but I don't think the problem is due to overpopulation. The NHS is struggling because they don't have the funding to deal with our current population, but that's a funding problem, rather than a population problem. Our economy is doing great right now, we have a higher GDP growth rate than the US and Germany.

    The problem is simply that our current government isn't giving public services the money that they need. It's not that we don't have the money - EU immigrants more than pay for themselves, and the deficit is getting smaller every year - it's that our government is choosing not to fund these services adequately, while giving tax cuts to the richest people in society. Population just isn't the problem. If we were to leave the EU right now, our population growth would decrease, but we'd also lose the money that EU immigrants bring in, and the government would probably reduce spending accordingly.

    We have more than enough money to fund our public services adequately, and I think that's largely due to EU immigration. We're explicitly choosing not to, and I don't think that would change if we were to leave the EU. Public services are going to continue to suffer until we demand that our government starts funding them with all the money they're saving, rather than offsetting it through tax cuts. They're intentionally underfunding services.

    3. It doesn't really bother me. Our leaders (not Cameron, but pro-Brexit Tories or Labour MPs) regularly make comments that are no better. Half the politicians in the country seem to be telling us that the EU are dictators trying to take away our freedom, and telling us that we're better than all of them and that we don't need them. The hostility goes both ways, but I think it's completely fair that they reciprocate. We're trying to break a union that benefits them as much as it benefits us, I'd be hostile too.

    4. I'll admit that I don't really know enough about the Eurozone to comment either way. If it ever came to that then I'd do some research and evaluate my opinion, but there's no real risk of it happening - the UK and Denmark are the only EU member states not obligated to join in the future.

    Hope this has helped!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)


    1. EU law protects YOU: Throughout the referendum campaign, Vote Leave have been very loud about EU legislation. They say that the EU makes laws that cost British companies money, and we'd be more well-off financially if we could get rid of those laws. This is true. What they don't tell you, though, is that most of the laws they want rid of protect you. The EU is very progressive, and over the years they've introduced a lot of rights and regulations: they provide your consumer rights, which guarantee a refund period and working products; they provide product safety regulations that force manufacturers to make their products as safe as possible; they provide workers' rights, such as 28 days paid leave and a limit on working hours;
    And yet worker rights vary wildly between European countries. Clearly, the EU is not the central driving force in them. We will have them one way or another. Now, the excessive regulations not only cost companies money, but they practically strangle small companies and allow bigger ones who can afford the BS to keep dominating the market. That is why Europe has such an anti-competitive atmosphere to it.

    If you think our rights aren't at risk, please consider that the head of MI6 wants to leave the EU so we can get rid of the Human Rights Act, and our current government are trying to repeal that act right now.


    Good. We are trying to get rights that enable us to better control terrorists and deport them, which Europe seems to have a problem with.





    In 2014,44% of UK exports were to the EU. If we were to leave the EU, this would almost definitely decrease, as we become less favourable to trade with. 15% of our GDP (the total money coming into the country, a measure of economic strength) comes from EU exports. That's £300 billion.
    Now the thing about economics is, the EU limits our trading power. Because of it, it is difficult for us to trade with the rest of the world, which is overtaking the stagnant swamp of Europe. We leave, and we are more flexible to trade with everyone else. We will also trade just as well with Europe; we are in the top 10 economies along with France and Germany, and they won't sacrifice their trade with us with significant tariffs. As you can see, Switzerland, Norway etc. have far less influence over their trade with Europe and yet they are doing great, and we will do even better. We will be world leaders. If we believe we can be world leaders we will be, and Brexit will inspire in us a mood of self-confidence and getting down to business.


    3. Free Migration:

    Oh well? If working in Europe is truly profitable, it will happen no matter what. People will have more expensive holidays? Sure, but that is a miniscule effect compared to the benefits an independent Britain will have.

    And about migration TO Britain.... let's be honest here. Just be honest for a second. Why is it such a hot topic? Because nobody wants to lose their country. Nobody wants a complete ethnic washover, and frankly that is what is happening. I'm not British, and I wouldn't want my own country to be ethnically replaced by a completely foreign mix of people. It is unnatural for anyone. White Brits have declining birth rates below replacement levels. Non-white people are growing in population, and are more youthful. 85% of England is non-White British, and 50% of London is. The proportions of non-white children are even higher. Now how do White Brits feel? Be reasonable. There is a very clear reason why UKIP, Brexit etc. are all so popular.



    You're right, it's an extremely important decision. Which is why even though I do not usually involve myself in internet politics, I do for Brexit because I hope I will inspire at least a few people to make the right decision to leave.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    About number 2) Immigration. Yes, you can frely migrate within the EU. Here is the new immigrants coming to the UK



    They should diretly direct the boat to the shores of England instead going to Italy.
 
 
 
  • 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.