BREXIT - leave or remain?

[TheTaurenOrc]

What kind of logic is this? Under this logic, I can then ask you why anyone who voted leave would care for the money that's being sent to the EU.

Its the logic of the working class, with low education, making ends meet on handouts and no prospects for the future.

You have the Remain side claiming things aren't bad, but they will get worse if you leave.
And you have the Leave side claiming more opportunity, better prospects for the future and above all hope.

The average working class voter can understand the government is spending X amount on being part of the EU. The nuances of the stock markets, currency exchanges and greater economic impacts those have I dare say is beyond them.

Bottom line is in my opinion, the Remain campaign needed to appeal to those voters, not the affluent voter in the south. And they did a terrible job in doing so.

Don't try to distance yourself now from the racist arguments now the leave campaign used as their go to argument. The go to argument has always been how Polish people are welfare queens and how Turkish people would rape the English women.

Its not my intention to distance myself, I just don't think it represents the majority of the leave voters. And I was disappointed that the Leave campaign allowed the far right side to fester, even though it was in their interest to keep their votes it cast a shadow on the other arguments to leave.

[Slant]

Yes, use an ad hominem because you can't actually discuss the point I am making because you don't actually understand it as I have said.

You haven't said anything. You're ignoring that we're discussing political decisions and their effect on the market and mistake them for economic approaches. We're not in a classroom, it's all fine and dandy to throw around empty words like Macroeconomics without actually filling them with any argumentative content. I mean you butted into an existing discussion about the political reasoning behind such decisions and try to bludgeon it to death with "uhh, macroeconomics" and that's it for you. So yeah, you haven't actually made any point, yet. If you want me to take you seriously, how about you start now?

[alexw]

Actually I think both sides are making good points, the problem is the same between Varoufakis and Schäuble. They are of different economic schools. In one school, investments and good trade balance wins, in the other one austerity and pro-business policy wins. Social vs. liberal economics so to speak. Economic schools are however like religions, there is an unbridgable gap between both. They can't get along well at all.

Err no austerity does not "win". It plainly does not work. We have seen that in the epic disaster it has brought about in southern Europe. Noone in their right mind could ever say austerity has "worked" in spain, italy, greece, or france.

[Slant]

Actually I think both sides are making good points, the problem is the same between Varoufakis and Schäuble. They are of different economic schools. In one school, investments and good trade balance wins, in the other one austerity and pro-business policy wins. Social vs. liberal economics so to speak. Economic schools are however like religions, there is an unbridgable gap between both. They can't get along well at all.

I get that, that hasn't been the point, though. This is not about which economic school is better in theory, or even in practice. We see this battle fought between the two German main parties every election cycle. It's not news. However, this is not a discussion about economic schools of thought. This was a discussion about one party in a negotiation having all cards and the other having none at all. Whoever's philosophy of economics may be right or not doesn't even come into play. This is political reality. And since austerity and proper Governance had all the arguments (especially since Germany is booming as a result of those measures) and the other school was really just represented by a eccentric theoretician with little to no actual experience in diplomacy or politics... this was a rather one sided discussion during the negotiations.

- - - Updated - - -

Err no austerity does not "win". It plainly does not work. We have seen that in the epic disaster it has brought about in southern Europe. Noone in their right mind could ever say austerity has "worked" in spain, italy, greece, or france.

They never tried austerity. But go ahead and ignore that. It clearly doesn't fit into your world view.

[ati87]

Err no austerity does not "win". It plainly does not work. We have seen that in the epic disaster it has brought about in southern Europe. Noone in their right mind could ever say austerity has "worked" in spain, italy, greece, or france.

Because government spending was helping them? It's the cause of most of their trouble (france did something else idiotic which is a whole different subject).

The countries you mentioned (minus france) all had issues with excesses and waist-full government spending. If you hire dozen or so people when you only need 1, at no point will this help create a stable economy (this is literately what greece did).

For some countries that have their shit in order austerity doesn't completely work, you need both extra spending and spending cuts in some area's.

But if the cause of their financial crisis is routed in excesses spending, you just don't go back to that time in order to fix the ''problem''. Greece could have hired back the numerous useless workers they had and their situation would have been fixed for as long as they could borrow cheap money. But then the moment the interest rises they will end up in the same situation again.

[Triks]

So primarily it was to get noticed and send a notice to your government. It is actually a pretty good reason but why not do it in a general election or writing directly to your MP or MEP?

- - - Updated - - -

Err no austerity does not "win". It plainly does not work. We have seen that in the epic disaster it has brought about in southern Europe. Noone in their right mind could ever say austerity has "worked" in spain, italy, greece, or france.

Austerity failed in Southern Europe because it was done haphazardly. There was no due-diligence, no analysis and no idea how to manage the process. It was done "just 'cuz".

[Unionoob]

What kind of logic is this? Under this logic, I can then ask you why anyone who voted leave would care for the money that's being sent to the EU.

That's simple. Populists told that without EU they would spend more money inhouse. That made people think that they ones who voted leave would get more money.

[TheTaurenOrc]

So primarily it was to get noticed and send a notice to your government. It is actually a pretty good reason but why not do it in a general election or writing directly to your MP or MEP?

Well the Conservatives won the last General Election after calming they would give the people the EU referendum if they voted for them. I guess they underestimated how appealing that was to the voters.

[Floopa]

keep continuing to call every leave voter racist. really does make you look so much more intelligent than us leave voters.

people are missing the point. the money given to poor places in england/wales (valleys, north of england etc) go towards amazing projects. no-one can deny that. part of cardiff uni is subsidised by the eu for research purposes, and a lot of UK research as a whole is funded by EU money/governance. however to the normal person, the every day person living in these poor areas. you know, the single mother of 3 who works 9 > 3 so her children can have an education but lives on the breadline? they don't care about this money. they would rather that money be put into the NHS so prescriptions are cheaper, they would rather the money go towards schools to improve catchment areas, they would probably rather the cost of public transport go down by 10%, etc.

this is why i voted leave. yes, we are going to take a hit economically (i knew this prior, and expected it). our taxes are likely to rise maybe 2-2.5%. the economy will not be as bad as it was in 2008 however and it will recover quicker than the 2008 recession did. afterwards i fully expect the country to be in a better position. sure, that mother of 3 may not see money in her pocket go up but if NHS prescriptions go down 5%, if her child support money goes up £10/week, if public transport for her children to go school goes down by 5p/journey, the mother of 3 will be happy.

not everyone in the UK has had the opportunities 18-24 voters today have had. that's what these young people are forgetting.

[Shadowmelded]

It is, but those who voted leave had nothing to start with. Why would they care for stocks and currency that appear to have no bearing on their daily lives?

Because they have pensions that are affected by stocks? Because Government finances are going to take a massive hit so they'll be less able to pay for benefits, housing, the NHS etc...?

After having seen this, https://twitter.com/Channel4News/sta...61311358955521
I honestly cannot put into words how I feel, other than disgusted. The result of this referendum has just emboldened these types of people to go from armchair to fully fledged active.

Yeah it's getting really disgusting.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/sta...61311358955521
http://www.lbc.co.uk/im-so-scared-no...n-tears-132971
https://twitter.com/Leisha007/status/747421605018636288

I don't know how they put the genie back in the bottle now.

[alexw]

You haven't said anything. You're ignoring that we're discussing political decisions and their effect on the market and mistake them for economic approaches. We're not in a classroom, it's all fine and dandy to throw around empty words like Macroeconomics without actually filling them with any argumentative content. I mean you butted into an existing discussion about the political reasoning behind such decisions and try to bludgeon it to death with "uhh, macroeconomics" and that's it for you. So yeah, you haven't actually made any point, yet. If you want me to take you seriously, how about you start now?

I've given you plenty of argumentative content. That you don't understand that content is clear which is why I provided a link for you to peruse on macroeconomics written by a professor of economics. But you refuse to read it. And I entered the debate when the discussion was on Greece and Germany and how German economic practices were ruinous to Greece. So how is that not economics based?

I'm not sure what more you expect? Perhaps for me to nod in agreement and say you are correct when you are flat out 100% wrong?

[Triks]

keep continuing to call every leave voter racist. really does make you look so much more intelligent than us 'leave voters'.

people are missing the point. the money given to poor places in england/wales (valleys, north of england etc) go towards amazing projects. no-one can deny that. part of cardiff uni is subsidised by the eu for research purposes, and a lot of UK research as a whole is funded by EU money/governance. however to the normal person, the every day person living in these poor areas. you know, the single mother of 3 who works 9 > 3 so her children can have an education but lives on the breadline? they don't care about this money. they would rather that money be put into the NHS so prescriptions are cheaper, they would rather the money go towards schools to improve catchment areas, they would probably rather the cost of public transport go down by 10%, etc.

this is why i voted leave. yes, we are going to take a hit economically (i knew this prior, and expected it). our taxes are likely to rise maybe 2-2.5%. the economy will not be as bad as it was in 2008 however and it will recover quicker than the 2008 recession did. afterwards i fully expect the country to be in a better position. sure, that mother of 3 may not see money in her pocket go up but if NHS prescriptions go down 5%, if her child support money goes up £10/week, if public transport for her children to go school goes down by 5p/journey, the mother of 3 will be happy.

not everyone in the UK has had the opportunities 18-24 voters today have had. that's what these young people are forgetting.

The only problem is that a big chunk of the tax money in the form of The London City can leave, as well as you guys face an increase in membership fees should you join the EEA. That's the sad part.

[Kronik85]

I've given you plenty of argumentative content. That you don't understand that content is clear which is why I provided a link for you to peruse on macroeconomics written by a professor of economics. But you refuse to read it. And I entered the debate when the discussion was on Greece and Germany and how German economic practices were ruinous to Greece. So how is that not economics based?

I'm not sure what more you expect? Perhaps for me to nod in agreement and say you are correct when you are flat out 100% wrong?

Of course he's going to ignore you, you're an expert. We don't listen to experts anymore. Welcome to the post Brexit world! :P

[alexw]

Because government spending was helping them? It's the cause of most of their trouble (france did something else idiotic which is a whole different subject).

The countries you mentioned (minus france) all had issues with excesses and waist-full government spending. If you hire dozen or so people when you only need 1, at no point will this help create a stable economy (this is literately what greece did).

For some countries that have their shit in order austerity doesn't completely work, you need both extra spending and spending cuts in some area's.

But if the cause of their financial crisis is routed in excesses spending, you just don't go back to that time in order to fix the ''problem''. Greece could have hired back the numerous useless workers they had and their situation would have been fixed for as long as they could borrow cheap money. But then the moment the interest rises they will end up in the same situation again.

No. This is just wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with government spending. The economic fallout affects the gov's balance sheet which makes it look like its a gov spending problem but in reality it has nothing to do with that. It is all about macroeconomic imbalances between and within economies and how asset bubbles arise as a result.

I suggest you read this if you want to understand. Its a link to some work by a macroeconomist on the subject of aforesaid imbalances.

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/econ...me-inequality/

[Cairhiin]

Then you understand that it is unit labor costs which matter vis a vis trade competitiveness and not what the real or nominal wage is? Because the former factors in productivity while the latter does not? If so why are you saying that he is wrong on this point?

Yes I understand but I wasn't talking about competitiveness, I was talking about comparative advantage, and how regional integration schemes between developed nations benefit the countries with the least extreme comparative advantage, which means that the less developed countries get more out of a preferential trade agreement. On the other hand in a south south regional integration the member with the highest comparative advantage gains all the benefit, and those are usually doomed to fail. The EU is not a S-S PTA. Income convergence is happening inside the EU.

[TheTaurenOrc]

Because they have pensions that are affected by stocks? Because Government finances are going to take a massive hit so they'll be less able to pay for benefits, housing, the NHS etc...?

This is white van man we're talking about. I doubt its even in their purview, Remains message did nothing for them.

[Triks]

This is white van man we're talking about. I doubt its even in their purview, Remains message did nothing for them.

What is this "white van man" thing?

[Slant]

No. This is just wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with government spending. The economic fallout affects the gov's balance sheet which makes it look like its a gov spending problem but in reality it has nothing to do with that. It is all about macroeconomic imbalances between and within economies and how asset bubbles arise as a result.

I suggest you read this if you want to understand. Its a link to some work by a macroeconomist on the subject of aforesaid imbalances.

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/econ...me-inequality/

Yeah, I knew it. As soon as I go to that website avast is going bonkers. No thanks, you can keep your shite blogger website.

[alexw]

They never tried austerity. But go ahead and ignore that. It clearly doesn't fit into your world view.

What???? You must be joking or something? Do you understand how many times various governments have cut their spending in a futile effort to meet German set targets that simply make the situation worse?

[Deleted]

not everyone in the UK has had the opportunities 18-24 voters today have had. that's what these young people are forgetting.

I would argue the 35-50 year olds had way more that were totally state funded. Instead of recognising the world was changing and acting accordingly many just whinged about the change.