However, you still haven't convinced me, and here's why:
Russia, USA, Canada etc. None of these are in the EU and all seem to be doing fine. And imagine trying to convince the USA to join a similar EU-type system in the Americas? No chance. All they have at the minute is a trade agreement, which is not only working fine for them, but it's essentially what we'll end up with too, on our terms.Beano wrote:Norway
I've clumped all these together as they're all vague "appeal to authority" logical fallacies, including one quote where you admit we're not dealing in facts here, only predictions and opinion.Beano wrote:Google it and you will see the opinions of every credible economist. You can't use a 'facts' to describe what hasn't yet happened, only the thoughts and predictions of those who will make the changes based on the referendum. What more do you need than the leading academics, economists (both left and right leaning) and multi-national businesses speaking almost unitedly in these terms?
Your appeals to authority are incorrect and dishonest as I have "Googled" it and it isn't as clear cut and opinion isn't as united as you claim. In fact, for every prediction by an authority figure you present, I can find an opposing prediction from a different authority figure.
And half your post is nothing more than these vague appeals to authority.
More guesswork, more assumptions, more scare tactics.Beano wrote:Big businesses are multi-national. Their HQ and strategic outposts are in the markets which allow them optimal access to the most people and wealth. If we leave the EU, we won't be in that optimal position.
An example: Nissan Sunderland has a contract for the next X number of years to build the Qashqai. If we were to leave, it is extremely unlikely to be renewed as trade tarrifs will render the excellent productivity of the factory meaningless. Nissan wouldn't close overnight, but would slowly lose contracts over time until it was no longer viable.
Another example: London is perfectly placed as THE city to trade in all financial markets as the hub of EU and worldwide trade. If we leave the EU, that is very likely to shift to Frankfurt instead, for the obvious reasons. Again, it wouldn't happen overnight, but slowly overtime as lease agreements on buildings and offices run out and multi-nationals shift their HQs and strategic outposts to within the EU.
1. We won't have to pay a membership fee for the EU anymore, so we'd see an instant profit of billions of pounds.
2. We could set up our own trading deals on our own terms, ala Canada. A think-tank conducted by Open Europe suggested that our GDP could increase by 1.6% if we could create our own free trading with EU members. However, the same think-tank suggested that the worst case scenario is that our GDP will take a hit of 2.2%, which is minimal in exchange for our independence, and it's not definitive anyways as we've already established: these are just predictions.
3. Free from EU rules and regulations, Britain could reinvent itself as a Singapore-style supercharged economy.
4. The departure of one of the EU's most powerful economies would hit its finances and boost populist anti-EU movements in other countries. The UK would then be seen as a safe haven from those risks, attracting investors and boosting the pound.
All of the above was brought to you by credible economists, academics, and other important sounding authority figures.
We'd still be a member of all of those: we're voting to leave the EU, nothing more. And you hit on a key point here: we've been on the winning side of a large number of EU policy votes? Exactly, EU policy votes, influenced by all the other members of the EU, with their own agendas and motivations. If we leave, we can be done with that, and just deal with our own policies.Beano wrote:We enjoyed a privileged position as policymaker rather than policy subordinate as a member of the G7, EU, UN Security Council and NATO. If we cannot influence others, we become far less relevant and far more isolated. A fact you will enjoy - the UK has been on the winning side of 97% of all EU policy votes. That is because we shape and make it.
Plus we'd still be involved in world politics and we'd still be a superpower. I think it is more accurate to replace "isolated" with "independent".
However, I'd like to throw in the point that at the moment, we do not have full control over immigration, but we would if we left. We are at the mercy of the EU with regards to immigration between member states. This is not acceptable, and is another area for which we would have complete control over if we left, as well as any other EU based laws.
You make it sound like we'd up in a Walking Dead style apocalypse, but this is simply not the case. Being a member of the EU isn't a prerequisite for economic success: we managed without it before it was invented and other countries, mentioned above, manage without it too.
I admit it is a complex subject with many unknowns but your post made it sound clear-cut, obvious, agreed upon by "those in the know", and apocalyptic, but it is none of these things.