Lie or reality ? ---- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ost-up-to-950000-jobs-cbi-warns-a6942846.html
Last edited:
General / Off-Topic Brexit could blow £100bn hole in UK economy and cost up to 950,000 jobs, CBI warns
- Thread starter Patrick_68000
- Start date
No doubt there would be costs in the short term. Any longer term benefits / losses are for the people's vote to decide.
Nearly irrelevant, the better/worst in/out argument is almost impossible to predict. Each side can point to analysis that says their option is better and the other side's analysis is flawed.
However we can ask some basic questions.
Will any trade deal we negotiate with the EU be better than the current deal we have? Bear in mind that right now we have the gold standard trade deal of free, unrestricted market access.
The EU makes up about 45% of our export market, it is our biggest single market. On the other hand the UK makes up only 10% of the EU's market. In other words they are more important to us then we are to them. Factor that into any negotiations on a trade deal.
Would we be able to make up any shortfall in exports to the EU with exports to India, China, the US? Bear in mind that Europe is a half hour train journey away or a couple of hours via cargo ship. All the other potential trading partners are an order of magnitude further away, in different time zones.
this is a question not of the economic situation, but an ideological one. Do you believe that the brighter future is one of European nations to drifting together towards common goals, or that a future Europe of nations competing with each other to realise their own goals is preferable?
The latter option is what Europe has been like since the fall of the roman empire and has not always resulted in happy outcomes.
However we can ask some basic questions.
Will any trade deal we negotiate with the EU be better than the current deal we have? Bear in mind that right now we have the gold standard trade deal of free, unrestricted market access.
The EU makes up about 45% of our export market, it is our biggest single market. On the other hand the UK makes up only 10% of the EU's market. In other words they are more important to us then we are to them. Factor that into any negotiations on a trade deal.
Would we be able to make up any shortfall in exports to the EU with exports to India, China, the US? Bear in mind that Europe is a half hour train journey away or a couple of hours via cargo ship. All the other potential trading partners are an order of magnitude further away, in different time zones.
this is a question not of the economic situation, but an ideological one. Do you believe that the brighter future is one of European nations to drifting together towards common goals, or that a future Europe of nations competing with each other to realise their own goals is preferable?
The latter option is what Europe has been like since the fall of the roman empire and has not always resulted in happy outcomes.
In or out of the EU we'll still trade with them, trade is always a two way benefit you either get goods/services you need or you make money from selling them. Both parties lose out if the trade stops (in either direction).
It's just fear-mongering, we traded with the EU before joining it that won't change.
Another thing they've been waving the panic flag about is crop pickers (currently Eastern European) not coming if we leave and crops rotting in the fields. Prior to EU membership our crops were picked mostly by Irish, Canadian, South African, Australian, New Zealand and commonwealth students working abroad for a few months to flesh out their CV after graduation. They may return and a simple work visa and passport check isn't likely to deter an eastern European crop picker (but it will deter wanted criminals).
I'm in favour of staying in the EU but I'm sick of the panic stories (in both directions) and the total lack of coherent reasoned information.
It's just fear-mongering, we traded with the EU before joining it that won't change.
Another thing they've been waving the panic flag about is crop pickers (currently Eastern European) not coming if we leave and crops rotting in the fields. Prior to EU membership our crops were picked mostly by Irish, Canadian, South African, Australian, New Zealand and commonwealth students working abroad for a few months to flesh out their CV after graduation. They may return and a simple work visa and passport check isn't likely to deter an eastern European crop picker (but it will deter wanted criminals).
I'm in favour of staying in the EU but I'm sick of the panic stories (in both directions) and the total lack of coherent reasoned information.
You're right about both the fear mongering and the fact that trade won't stop, both parties benefit from it.
the point is that it seems unlikely that the uk would get a better deal on EU trade after leaving than what we have, give what we have (in trade deal terms) is about as good as it gets. In essence, trade with the EU is almost certain take a hit.
The "outties" say that the uk will make up for this by trading more with the rest of the world.
Is it likely that we could strike trade deals with other countries that will compensate for ay EU trade loss? Remember that we would be small fry dealing with the US (hardly famous for trade deals advantageous to the other party) and China. We might do better with India, we might not. Then there is the pure logistics of shipping goods and people back and forth between the UK and these markets, all of which are an order of magnitude further away.
On balance, I think it is unlikely we will do better in economic terms outside rather than in.
this may well be true (although all those students now work in bars in London) but it does mean that the complaint about local jobs being taken by eastern Europeans will be replaced with the complaint that local jobs are being taken by foreign students.
. Ditto sick of the fear mongering.
.
You did raise an interesting point, about criminals having easy access. It would he nice (and probably shut alot of people up) if there was some mechanism for baring entrance to EU citizens to countries other than their home country. I would have to be euro wide and only be a available on an individual basis i.e. no "UK bans all Greeks" but "Uk bans Mr X because of crime Y"
I think it wont make any practical difference. Say the French and Germans get sniffy about a brexit and whack on import and export tax, it'll only work if they force everyone in the EU to do the same. One EU country that ignores it (the French have a very healthy approach to ignoring any EU legislation they find inconvenient) or acts as a middleman gets all the business. We'd also save on EU due's and regulation in some ways. For example British agriculture is paying far more out to the EU than it receives in subsidy so we'd definitely benefit there.
Yeah I can see that happening the complaining is a constant, but the crops will get picked one way or another.
To do that you need border controls in and out and most importantly a (working) database of whose entering and leaving, we have none of that currently. A visa system means the checks are carried out before they even embark it's even easier that way (but a bit draconian).
One of the main reasons I'm pro-EU is that Mrs Stigbob is an EU migrant. She's a good earner and tax payer who was educated abroad costing the country where she now pays taxes nothing (when the BNP came doorknocking they told her she was a good immigrant and seemed surprised when she told them to exit stage left pronto). It would be a pain for her to get work permits and register at the embassy or whatever. I could always just hide her in the attic like the first Mrs Rochester though.
The other is the fact that we are lucky enough to live in the most peaceful period in European history ever, but I don't think that would be threatened by a brexit as we'd still trade, work and fight alongside the EU. Turkey playing missile chicken with the Russians is a far greater threat to peace than a brexit, and they are trying for EU membership. I'm not sure I want to be in their club though.
There's a hilarious sketch in the first 5 minutes of the now show from last Friday about the lack of proper debate it's worth a listen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03n71z8
People silenced through fear of immediate harsh reprisal for giving an opinion based on their professional knowledge is not the basis for making a well researched decision. In fact it's pretty much a guarantee of the exact opposite.
That would explain why all we are getting is uninformed fear-mongering screams of "GAAAAAH we are all doomed if (insert preference here)".
If the morons who are "organizing" the debate and referendum think that's the best approach to democracy we are better off in the EU with some external oversight of these idiots.
It would have to be a deal with the EU as they collectively bargain, that's the reason for the moaning now, the UK can't do unilateral deals at the moment. We would only account for 10% of their trade so there is far less pressure on them to reach a favourable deal and as you say they might have the hump and be in no mood for a fast deal or even want to measure an example of us.
Regarding agriculture, the UK rebate is to account for the lower farm payments the UK gets compared to the other major members. The farming sector is generally"in".
Regarding regulation, if we wanted to sell our stuff (say kids toys) to the EU, we'd have to comply with their regs anyway but we'd no longer have any say in setting them.
Right now we are outside the "shengen" (spelling?) zone. That means we can already check everyone in and out. Our failure to record this info is a failure of the UK government and nothing to do with the EU.
We are part of the free movement zone, so we can't stop people lawfully moving, but we can monitor them.
That chap was fired because he failed to clearly distinguish between his personal opinion and the collective opinion of the people he was paid to represent.
He made pro out statements, which as head of the BCC, were reported as the BCC's collective position when the membership had voted to remain neutral.
Imagine you were a member who had voted to remain neutral (as around 70% did) watching your head on TV saying the opposite because it was his personal opinion.
His job was to reflect the opinion of the membership, not use his position to promote his own opinions and he failed spectacularly.
Then announce why and how he was wrong and issue a clarification, stifling dissent through punitive action is always the wrong thing to do.
The man's entitled to his opinion and to give it publicly, he didn't say he was speaking on behalf of the BCC and it's members that was just bad reporting. He was giving his opinion, I defend that (whilst disagreeing with him).
Sacking him was a badly thought out panicked knee jerk reaction by the people pushing vague fears, it hasn't helped their position or credibility.
It has however given the brexit supporters the (fact based) opportunity to hold him up as a martyr attacked for trying to inform the public.
Last edited:
He is entitled to his opinion but as the head of an organization it is his responsibility to make sure he is absolutely crystal clear about where his opinion ends and the official line begins. The smartest thing would be to stick to the official line at all times.
Remember, this wasn't a remark over Sunday lunch to a friend, this was to journalists at the BCC national conference, he was very much at work in an offal capacity and should have behaved as such.
The overwhelming majority of his members voted for neutrality. He then gives "out" (in truth it was a little more nuanced, but it was "out" in tone) views at an official function.
That's a pretty big misstep on a pretty big issue.
Last edited:
I follow politics and current affairs reasonably closely, but I'd never heard of the dude before he was publicly sacked for giving his opinion.
Brexit (or not) is currently big news so he suddenly finds himself in front of the massed press (probably for the first time) and doesn't really know how to handle it, he doesn't ensure he can't be easily misinterpreted or misquoted by reporters with a biased agenda (all of them) and gets publicly shamed and canned. The man's real error was just a lack of media savvy, a public clarification a training course or a temporary assistant press spokesperson until this short term issue dies down would have been sufficient.
Holding him to the same level of public speaking accountability as the people who do it for a living every day is plainly wrong, but an effective way to silence him.
One of the main factors in the massive level of public disengagement from politics is the same old "official line" soundbites being spewed irrespective of the question asked or the context in which it's asked.
We need more opinions and more people speaking their minds irrespective of the party line right across the board in politics.
He may well have been under equipped to deal with the media onslaught, and as I said his statement was more nuanced than simply "out", but it was also far from the "neutral" position his organization has voted to adopt and the circumstances (speaking to the press, on camera during their conference) was also far from an off the cuff remark to someone who later turned out to be a journalist.
whilst hardly the biggest organization, the BCC represents small businesses and as such is a player in the debate. The members are entitled to be angry if their view is put aside in favour of the personal opinion of their chief exec.
this was not silencing debate, this was punishing someone who (maybe unconsciously) failed to do his job in favour of his personal position.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Anyway we're in danger of drifting off topic, the poor bloke lost his job, for better or worse, over some ill thought out words.
what we both agree on is that we need good quality debate from both sides rather than emotional rants.
You and Dave, must be really good mates, as you will have nothing said against him and continue to support and justify his actions and polices.
Democracy has gone out of the window with this referendum. Dave is making the rules up as he goes along. He might as well as said, vote as you like fellow MPs, just don't question the party line. He is making use of the civil service and has threatened sanctions to any department head that voices an exit view. Even those heads, working for things like the heath service have been told; they represent the government and so can not voice an opposing opinion to the government stance. Government ministers, on the exit side, are not allowed access to the civil service or any documents, they have to offer. They can not check any claims made by Dave and his cronies; as they are now locked out of the archives.
The sad thing is, with all this manipulation, lies and fear tactics, people as misinformed as they are, will just vote to leave, just to spite; Dave and his kind.
Last edited:
The press lie all the time altering whats been said by only reporting one (or part of) a sentence or speech robbing the information of context to change it's meaning. They do this to favour their own agenda and every reporter has an agenda (in different political directions), then the editor has an agenda and the news channel an owner/board with an agenda. What we get from the press comes through at least 3 biased agenda filters.
What happened here is that the pro-brexit parts of the press seized on a single line (without context) to help push their chosen narrative. There was then a massive political overreaction to punish the "offender".
Are the members really that angry ?, why not issue a rebuttal (possibly risking being sacked in turn for being anti-brexit). Or do they lack a basic understanding of how the press operates.
Making an example publicly of a "thought criminal" who failed to follow the party line has only one purpose the silencing of dissent through fear of reprisal.
If the individual was the problem and not public perception of what he was reported as having said, he would have been asked to quietly resign with no accompanying media circus.
The man is a public warning and an example that pro-EU is the only politically acceptable stance to take.
It's not going to happen people are rightly scared to give opinions how the hell are we going to get access to information to debate when honest opinions are punishable by sacking. Until we have freedom of speech around this issue it's a guaranteed win for the brexit. Silencing debate stokes fears, resentment and a siege mentality. The brexit vote relies on all of those things, it was a stupid counterproductive thing to do. It smells of panic.
I'm pro-EU I don't want a brexit, but the government are handling this as badly as they did the Scottish independence referendum (smell the panic) and actively helping the viewpoint they oppose.
It may not be about trade at all. Perhaps the most important reason to be "IN" is having one unified military force. What with China becoming increasingly belligerent towards the west and Japan......and everybody else. Plus Russia's military spending seemingly being on an exponential scale recently.
@Arry
Dave has nothing to do with the BCC chap.
.
I happen to be of the "stay" persuasion which puts me in the same side as the government on this one.
.
Both sides are engaged in fear tactics.
.
The in crowd about the negative economics effects of leaving.
.
The out crowd create fear of those foreigners coming in willy billy, those foreigners making all our laws, those foreigners taking all our jobs etc.
.
Sticking to the economic argument, my point is that trying to say leaving will cost X or stressing will cost Y is a pointless exercise. Every model uses assumptions and changing those radically changes the results.
.
Right now we have the best possible access to one of the worlds largest markets. How likely is it, given we will have just caused the EU a massive headache, that we will be able to reach a deal as good as what we have now? It is more likely that any deal would be less favourable overall. Say the deal was 5% worse for both sides. That's 5% of near half our trade and 5% of only 10% of the EUs trade.
.
Ok maybe we can make that 2.5% loss up with more favourable deals with China, USA and India. But could the UK strike a more favorable deal alone than as part of the biggest trade block in the world? I bet the US and China would walk all over us.
.
More importantly could we increase our trade with partners literally on the other side of the world as easily as with the EU, on our door step. Moving goods and people about the world is bound to be more expensive than moving them around Europe.
.
I cant see any realistic economic situation where we would be better of out than in.
.
One thing "out" makes a big noise over is the £50million a day we send to the EU. Putting aside the fact that its closer to £30million, that big sounding number needs to be put in context. The gov spends £2000million a day. In that context £50 is a drop in the ocean. Imagine spending £200 a day, then worrying about the £5 a day membership fee for your sports club.
@Stingbob
I don't think his leaving was political at all. He was censured by his organization then left so he could campaign for out freely. His organization are free to impose whatever restrictions they like.
I do fear (no pun intended) that the government are ballsing this up by being too negative. I wish they were more upbeat and presented more explanations and debunking. Scientists for the EU are quite good in that respect.
@Flimley
I wouldn't be over worried about Russia. Their military is very outdated and although they are modernizing they are hampered by the fact they only have the GDP of Italy. Their economy is in the toilet and they cant afford the latest kit. That being said Putin is a very sharp operator so we must be careful. A united EU would def help contain him.
Dave has nothing to do with the BCC chap.
.
I happen to be of the "stay" persuasion which puts me in the same side as the government on this one.
.
Both sides are engaged in fear tactics.
.
The in crowd about the negative economics effects of leaving.
.
The out crowd create fear of those foreigners coming in willy billy, those foreigners making all our laws, those foreigners taking all our jobs etc.
.
Sticking to the economic argument, my point is that trying to say leaving will cost X or stressing will cost Y is a pointless exercise. Every model uses assumptions and changing those radically changes the results.
.
Right now we have the best possible access to one of the worlds largest markets. How likely is it, given we will have just caused the EU a massive headache, that we will be able to reach a deal as good as what we have now? It is more likely that any deal would be less favourable overall. Say the deal was 5% worse for both sides. That's 5% of near half our trade and 5% of only 10% of the EUs trade.
.
Ok maybe we can make that 2.5% loss up with more favourable deals with China, USA and India. But could the UK strike a more favorable deal alone than as part of the biggest trade block in the world? I bet the US and China would walk all over us.
.
More importantly could we increase our trade with partners literally on the other side of the world as easily as with the EU, on our door step. Moving goods and people about the world is bound to be more expensive than moving them around Europe.
.
I cant see any realistic economic situation where we would be better of out than in.
.
One thing "out" makes a big noise over is the £50million a day we send to the EU. Putting aside the fact that its closer to £30million, that big sounding number needs to be put in context. The gov spends £2000million a day. In that context £50 is a drop in the ocean. Imagine spending £200 a day, then worrying about the £5 a day membership fee for your sports club.
@Stingbob
I don't think his leaving was political at all. He was censured by his organization then left so he could campaign for out freely. His organization are free to impose whatever restrictions they like.
I do fear (no pun intended) that the government are ballsing this up by being too negative. I wish they were more upbeat and presented more explanations and debunking. Scientists for the EU are quite good in that respect.
@Flimley
I wouldn't be over worried about Russia. Their military is very outdated and although they are modernizing they are hampered by the fact they only have the GDP of Italy. Their economy is in the toilet and they cant afford the latest kit. That being said Putin is a very sharp operator so we must be careful. A united EU would def help contain him.
Last edited: