Quote: headhunter "So what you're saying is that you personally know more than a plethora of leading economists both foreign and domestic, who to a man have said that it would be overwhelmingly negative for the British economy.'"
I am not saying I personally know more than anyone actually I am just stating mu opinion.. What I am saying however is having studied both sides of the argument I strongly believe you should not cast your vote on the advice of these various groups of so called experts that have an appalling record of economic forecasting. Economics is not a science and the computer models that are used require certain default parameters to be imputed. With regard to the Treasuries doom and gloom forecasts The Institute of Economic Affairs commented "rubbish in -- rubbish out"
These negative reports exemplify John Kenneth Galbraith’s dictum that the only purpose of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.
You are wrong with you comment that leading economists "to a man" have a negative view of we left the EU. There are several highly respected independent economists who are not tainted or paid by the big groups with vested interests who have a positive view on a Brexit. For example leading senior UK academics Professor David Blake, of Cass Business School, City University, and Professor Kevin Dowd, Durham University Business School, have produced analysis reinforcing the Economists for Brexit views on Brexit.
"The Treasury has published two reports on the economic consequences of a decision by the UK to vote to leave the European Union in the Referendum on 23 June. Together, the reports predict that each household in the UK will be worse off (in terms of a lower gross domestic product) by £4,300 or more by 2030.
This prediction is grossly exaggerated for two main reasons. First, the Treasury assumes that the government will not respond to what it calls the ‘extreme shock’ of leaving the EU – a shock that is assumed to last for two years, which is longer than that caused by the Global Financial Crisis – and so will stand by while the economy dives into a recession with GDP falling by up to 6% over the next two years (relative to where the economy would be if the UK remained in the EU) – equivalent to losing 50% of our trade with the EU, even though we will still be in the Single Market during this period. This is simply not credible – had the government responded in the same way during the GFC, the consequences for the economy would have been catastrophic.
Second, it assumes that the UK, the fifth largest economy in the world, will be unable to negotiate more favourable trading arrangements than currently exist with either the EU or the rest of the world – which has three times the GDP of the EU and nine times its population and is growing much faster than the stagnant EU economy. As a result of this assumption,
GDP is predicted to be lower by up to 7.5% p.a. by 2030.
This prediction comes from combining the outcome from a short-term model (called a vector autoregressive (VAR) model) which is used for the first two years after leaving with a long term
model (called a gravity model) which is used to project GDP between 2018 and 2030. The reason that the models are switched in 2018 is because this is the maximum time allowed to negotiate an exit from the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
The specific gravity model used by the Treasury is centred on the EUhttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/570a10a460b5e93378a26ac5/t/575fd786d51cd49e879c9494/1465898896977/Measurement+without+Theory.pdfrl
Quote: headhunter "But it's been shown multiple times that EU immigrants make an overwhelming net positive contribution to the country. The things that most seem to be worried about relate almost entirely to non-EU immigration, which is something we already can "control" and don't, and which has nothing to do with this referendum."'"
I do not doubt that many EU immigrants make a positive contribution to the country however what is never taken into consideration is the effects on the wider society eg doctors waiting lists and extra workload on the NHS, school places and housing. I am in favour of controlled immigration to suit our needs providing our Government of the day has the full power to makes changes to those controls as and when circumstances alter. The only way for this to happen is by leaving the EU because half of the net immigration into the UK is from the EU over which we have little control and it is predicted to increase as the EU economy continues to decline and more countries join and more immigrants become EU citizens.
Quote: headhunter "The British government makes almost every single relevant decision for the people of this country. The Brexit campaign have tried to suggest that we are being constantly dictated to and told what to do by some foreign body but this isn't true at all, the EU regulations relate mainly to things like minimum trading standards which are beneficial for everyone and almost everything that the Leave campaign is currently blaming the EU for is entirely the responsibility of the British government already.'"
I again think you have been listening to the wrong people.
"Precise number are impossible to obtain, but Professor Chalmers, citing a 2010 House of Commons Library study, estimates that 14 to 17 per cent of UK law is derived from our EU membership.
In the same study, the UK government estimated that about 50 per cent of UK legislation with “significant economic impact” originates from EU legislation.
The bulk of those laws - around 60 per cent - relate to the fields of agriculture, fisheries and trade with non-EU states, but abiding by EU law has a ripple-effect that impacts almost all aspects of British life, from small businesses, to immigration, welfare and the courts.
Other areas like defence and public services are largely free of EU involvement, while other areas such as foreign policy and taxation, the UK is protected by either by a veto or qualified majority voting.
Sourcehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/how-does-the-eu-impinge-on-british-sovereignty-and-if-the-uk-vot/rl
Quote: headhunter "Again, what decisions do you think the EU is making or will make that shapes the 'destiny' of the country? The EU is not our national government and never has been or will be.'"
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that European agricultural policies cost EU consumers €16 billion (£12.6 billion) in subsidies and tariffs.
The fisheries policies impose quotas on UK fishermen and grants equal access to other European fishing fleets to the UK 200-mile exclusive economic zone around the UK coastline, preserving a 12-mile zone for exclusive UK boats.
The Treaty of Lisbon allowed the ECJ the possibility to rule on about 135 measures in the field of criminal justice. The UK has opted-in to 35 of these, including Europol, Eurojust and the controversial European Arrest Warrant (EUWA), which allows British citizens to be surrendered to other EU States for trial for a number of offences.
Other areas where European laws hold sway or influence include data protection, immigration law, asylum law, criminal justice, broadcasting, biotechnology, and some areas of family law.
Small businesses are particularly sensitive to the extra burden of red tape, with recent changes to VAT regulations – requiring firms to pay tax in every country they trade rather than where they are based - causing uproar.
We are not allowed to make our own trade deals with the rest of the world and have to go at the pace of 27 other countries coming to some agreement which are often in favour of other EU countries more than ours.
Despite being in the single EU for 43 years there is still not a single market for services. As services represents the majority of our economy and GDP this puts us at a disadvantage and restricts our trade.
