Vote leave lacks any cogent counter arguments - big surprise! In other news bears defecate in areas over grown by trees, and the pope finds religion.
How stupid to claim lack of 'cogent' counter arguments when there has been no credible argument mounted by the 'Remain' camp ............. but then anybody who believes that 'arguments' by Osborne have any form of rationale or accuracy in predicting the health of the UK economy in 2030 when he cannot even get it right over a 6 month period is inevitably going to be in the Remain camp.
The two go together like fish and chips!!
Neither camp can be trusted to provide reliable figures because neither camp has a crystal ball or a flying DeLorean.
Neither camp is treating us like adults and wants a frank discussion about the pros and cons of the decision we face.
Neither camp deserves our vote.
If it transpires that we made the right decision come June it'll be down to pure dumb luck.
We're not being fed information - we're being fed BS. We might as well head to the polling booths armed with a coin, toss it and vote accordingly because we sure as hell won't be trotting down to the polling station armed with many FACTS.
Yes have laid out the 3 main available options . They have then raised the potential downside. They have now put the options , with the rules that come with them, through the Treasury economic model - that decides everything else. It produce figures on what the downside costs. Every other model seems to produce similar results.The question is if exits costs 3% of GNP or 6 - not whether there 's a gain or a loss.
No have, at last, claimed there's a trading model they want - thats most like the , most risky ,and costly, WTO terms only option - but they have claimed there is no downside to it. They also claim everyone will give us what we want straight away, and include services and finance - although no treaty anyone, anywhere else, has, covers this. There's some doubt if anyone but Gove has signed up to that solution, but thats whats on offer so far.
Its then relatively simple - do you believe in every economic model, the entire history of past trade deals, and every expert who knows about the economy and trade ,and negotiating trade agreements - or someone whose basic pitch is - no problem mate, It will be fine? Frankly I would trust Larry the Downing Street cat more on this than Boris or Gove, or Farage - the cat has as much economic knowledge.
And yes, I am in favour of free movement within the EU, but not unlimited immigration. In case you hadn't noticed, there is immigration from both EU and non-EU countries.
But the difference is that the UK are ABLE to control non-EU immigration to the UK - even if they don't make a very good job of it. But how the hell are public sector facilities expected to process sensible planning, when they are absolutely unaware of the population expansion due to immigration when it is uncontrollable, yet they still have to plan ahead for changing infrastructure requirements??
Remember Labour's egregious prediction of 13,000 East European immigrants!!!
Immigration is fine if it is CONTROLLED .....which is what the majority of countries practise.....and in addition, they sanely, don't pay a subsidy in order to operate supposedly mutually beneficial trading with others
Yes have laid out the 3 main available options . They have then raised the potential downside. They have now put the options , with the rules that come with them, through the Treasury economic model - that decides everything else. It produce figures on what the downside costs. Every other model seems to produce similar results.The question is if exits costs 3% of GNP or 6 - not whether there 's a gain or a loss.
No have, at last, claimed there's a trading model they want - thats most like the , most risky ,and costly, WTO terms only option - but they have claimed there is no downside to it. They also claim everyone will give us what we want straight away, and include services and finance - although no treaty anyone, anywhere else, has, covers this. There's some doubt if anyone but Gove has signed up to that solution, but thats whats on offer so far.
Its then relatively simple - do you believe in every economic model, the entire history of past trade deals, and every expert who knows about the economy and trade ,and negotiating trade agreements - or someone whose basic pitch is - no problem mate, It will be fine? Frankly I would trust Larry the Downing Street cat more on this than Boris or Gove, or Farage - the cat has as much economic knowledge.
Yes have laid out the 3 main available options . They have then raised the potential downside. They have now put the options , with the rules that come with them, through the Treasury economic model - that decides everything else. It produce figures on what the downside costs. Every other model seems to produce similar results.The question is if exits costs 3% of GNP or 6 - not whether there 's a gain or a loss.
No have, at last, claimed there's a trading model they want - thats most like the , most risky ,and costly, WTO terms only option - but they have claimed there is no downside to it. They also claim everyone will give us what we want straight away, and include services and finance - although no treaty anyone, anywhere else, has, covers this. There's some doubt if anyone but Gove has signed up to that solution, but thats whats on offer so far.
Its then relatively simple - do you believe in every economic model, the entire history of past trade deals, and every expert who knows about the economy and trade ,and negotiating trade agreements - or someone whose basic pitch is - no problem mate, It will be fine? Frankly I would trust Larry the Downing Street cat more on this than Boris or Gove, or Farage - the cat has as much economic knowledge.
LOL - trumpeting the merits of 'economic models' when compiled by 'experts'!!! Do you think that these are something new??? When it comes apportioning blame for any economic downturn, those who promote these ultra-complicated mathematical/ financial models, ( and wonderful formulae as shown by Osborne!!!), and the traders who rely on them, seem to disappear!
If these economic model experts were real, we would be able to avoid many of the economic downturns that take place.
But the difference is that the UK are ABLE to control non-EU immigration to the UK - even if they don't make a very good job of it. But how the hell are public sector facilities expected to process sensible planning, when they are absolutely unaware of the population expansion due to immigration when it is uncontrollable, yet they still have to plan ahead for changing infrastructure requirements??
Remember Labour's egregious prediction of 13,000 East European immigrants!!!
Immigration is fine if it is CONTROLLED .....which is what the majority of countries practise.....and in addition, they sanely, don't pay a subsidy in order to operate supposedly mutually beneficial trading with others
The government can plan in exactly the same way that free movement within the UK (and Ireland) is already managed. Yes, all 65 million population of the UK could decide to move to London tomorrow, but so far, they never have. They just have to make predictions for population in the future and plan resources accordingly.
Sadly, Brexit screams a chorus of "you can't see the future", or "you don't have a crystal ball" any time anyone suggests planning for the future, but this is exactly how everyone does everything, and always have.
By the way, 5 million people born in the UK are now living abroad. The UK government has no control over emigration either.
The government can plan in exactly the same way that free movement within the UK (and Ireland) is already managed.
Well at least you have the sense to realise that it is impossible to effectively plan for infrastructure within such an uncontrolled environment.
Yes, all 65 million population of the UK could decide to move to London tomorrow, but so far, they never have. They just have to make predictions for population in the future and plan resources accordingly.
Of course they haven't, because such a notion is not held by sensible people - but when has any planning authority ever found it necessary to have to cope with such a stupid notion - the point is that it IS impossible to effectively plan for such potentially higher numbers.
Sadly, Brexit screams a chorus of "you can't see the future", or "you don't have a crystal ball" any time anyone suggests planning for the future, but this is exactly how everyone does everything, and always have.
Even more sadly is your total ineptitude to grasp the importance of scale.
By the way, 5 million people born in the UK are now living abroad. The UK government has no control over emigration either.
As usual, you are yet again not even recorded on the scale of common sense!! What has that particular snippet of information got to do with uncontrolled immigration??? Only some of those UK born citizens who are now resident in other EU countries have been able to settle there WITHOUT requiring permission...and many UK born citizens are resident in other countries throughout the globe too - which proves that controlled immigration is not a restraint on immigration......just a responsible procedure - practiced by sensible, responsible governments.
Yes have laid out the 3 main available options . They have then raised the potential downside. They have now put the options , with the rules that come with them, through the Treasury economic model - that decides everything else. It produce figures on what the downside costs. Every other model seems to produce similar results.The question is if exits costs 3% of GNP or 6 - not whether there 's a gain or a loss.
Even the people who wrote the report do not claim that brexit would cause the UK to be worse off in 30 years than if the UK remains part of the EU they just claim it could.
Comments
The two go together like fish and chips!!
Yes have laid out the 3 main available options . They have then raised the potential downside. They have now put the options , with the rules that come with them, through the Treasury economic model - that decides everything else. It produce figures on what the downside costs. Every other model seems to produce similar results.The question is if exits costs 3% of GNP or 6 - not whether there 's a gain or a loss.
No have, at last, claimed there's a trading model they want - thats most like the , most risky ,and costly, WTO terms only option - but they have claimed there is no downside to it. They also claim everyone will give us what we want straight away, and include services and finance - although no treaty anyone, anywhere else, has, covers this. There's some doubt if anyone but Gove has signed up to that solution, but thats whats on offer so far.
Its then relatively simple - do you believe in every economic model, the entire history of past trade deals, and every expert who knows about the economy and trade ,and negotiating trade agreements - or someone whose basic pitch is - no problem mate, It will be fine? Frankly I would trust Larry the Downing Street cat more on this than Boris or Gove, or Farage - the cat has as much economic knowledge.
But the difference is that the UK are ABLE to control non-EU immigration to the UK - even if they don't make a very good job of it. But how the hell are public sector facilities expected to process sensible planning, when they are absolutely unaware of the population expansion due to immigration when it is uncontrollable, yet they still have to plan ahead for changing infrastructure requirements??
Remember Labour's egregious prediction of 13,000 East European immigrants!!!
Immigration is fine if it is CONTROLLED .....which is what the majority of countries practise.....and in addition, they sanely, don't pay a subsidy in order to operate supposedly mutually beneficial trading with others
You missed out Osborne.
LOL - trumpeting the merits of 'economic models' when compiled by 'experts'!!! Do you think that these are something new??? When it comes apportioning blame for any economic downturn, those who promote these ultra-complicated mathematical/ financial models, ( and wonderful formulae as shown by Osborne!!!), and the traders who rely on them, seem to disappear!
If these economic model experts were real, we would be able to avoid many of the economic downturns that take place.
The government can plan in exactly the same way that free movement within the UK (and Ireland) is already managed. Yes, all 65 million population of the UK could decide to move to London tomorrow, but so far, they never have. They just have to make predictions for population in the future and plan resources accordingly.
Sadly, Brexit screams a chorus of "you can't see the future", or "you don't have a crystal ball" any time anyone suggests planning for the future, but this is exactly how everyone does everything, and always have.
By the way, 5 million people born in the UK are now living abroad. The UK government has no control over emigration either.
As usual, you are yet again not even recorded on the scale of common sense!! What has that particular snippet of information got to do with uncontrolled immigration??? Only some of those UK born citizens who are now resident in other EU countries have been able to settle there WITHOUT requiring permission...and many UK born citizens are resident in other countries throughout the globe too - which proves that controlled immigration is not a restraint on immigration......just a responsible procedure - practiced by sensible, responsible governments.