This video is quite interesting - it's from the "out" camp and presents the argument alternative to staying in the EU.

There are facts, such as EU's and Britain's post-war history, but there are also opinions disguised as facts. For instance, EU's protectionism is depicted as 100% negative with arguments such as

"Protecting a firm from competition does not make it more competitive.".

While a sentence like that on its own may be true in general, when you compare the cost of a product manufactured in the EU Vs. a similar product manufactured in India or China we're no longer talking about competition. When a cost is slashed by 80-90% (which is what happens in Asia) nobody in the industrialised world can compete with that. Nobody cares about quality anymore at those prices. So I think introducing quotas and tariffs for importing such goods is a way to deal with that.

Another aspect that the video does not deal with openly is what happens to the rights of workers in the UK should it leave the EU. At the moment the UK is bound by European employment law. I know that, in order to fire an employee for performance issues, I have to demonstrate that I have given that employee every chance to improve their performance, and I have to document that as well. Who knows what would happen to employment law in the case of Brexit?

Some aspects uncovered by the movie are interesting though. Provided it's accurate, I had no idea that there are 10,000 people within the EU bureaucratic machine that earn more than UK's Prime Minister. That's clearly an indication of excesses that should be stemmed.

wow extremely interesting.

If only a fraction of the allegations made are true I would think exiting would make sense. problem is as @xplorer says "there are also opinions disguised as facts". You don't know how much of what they say is actually true.

xplorer

when you compare the cost of a product manufactured in the EU Vs. a similar product manufactured in India or China we're no longer talking about competition. When a cost is slashed by 80-90% (which is what happens in Asia) nobody in the industrialised world can compete with that. Nobody cares about quality anymore at those prices. So I think introducing quotas and tariffs for importing such goods is a way to deal with that.

Every developed nation in the world is having to deal with this phenomenon. I don't know what the solution is (probably involves better education and training - great buzzwords but something that in reality rarely if ever, happens on a meaningful scale) but not sure indiscriminate quotas and tariffs are the solution. If you do that your in danger of slipping back into the crony capitalism that most people claim to want to avoid. You can bring in quality control laws, which would address sub standard products, but if they produce a better product and cheaper, do you really want to stop them?

The EU referendum debate has become a “mountain of exaggeration”, a cross-party group of MPs have warned as they demanded controversial claims from both sides are dropped.

Prominent politicians on opposing sides of the debate called for an “amnesty” as the campaign enters its final month in the hope “misleading” claims about the referendum can be ditched.

They said voters are “thoroughly fed up” with “lurid” warnings about consequences and added the way the campaign is being fought is “impoverishing political debate”.



Full article on The Telegraph.

From the same article in previous post



BREXIT CAMPAIGN

1) CLAIM: Britain pays £350 million a week to the EU

CONCLUSION: Claim is “highly misleading” because it ignores the amount the UK get backs from the rebate and money invested back in the country via EU funds.

2) CLAIM: Annual cost of EU regulation on UK economy is £33.3bn

CONCLUSION: Assertion is “misleading” because figure is the estimated cost of complying with EU regulations – not the amount the economy is being held back by the rules.

3) CLAIM: Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) costs each household £400 a year

CONCLUSION: Based on “out-of-date research”, with real figure “much less than £300”. Suggestion money would be “saved” after Brexit is inconsistent with claims farmers won’t lose out.



PRO-EU CAMPAIGN

4) CLAIM: Three million jobs are dependent on EU membership

CONCLUSION: Gives public the “mistaken impression” that all these jobs would be lost or at risk if Britain left the EU, which is not the case.

5) CLAIM: Import costs could increase by £11bn after Brexit

CONCLUSION: Assumption is “implausible”, “unhelpful” and “tendentious” because it ignores other possible trade deals and “should not be used without extensive explanation”.

6) CLAIM: Families would be £4,300 worse off after Brexit

CONCLUSION: Treasury analysis about a hit to GDP growth is being “misconstrued” to suggest voters would lose disposable income. “Mistake assertion” should not be repeated.

Rory 

I would not normally post a link to an hour long talk I have not quite finished, I have been watching it over a number of days. It is however directly relevant to anyone interested in this thread. I like his analogy of bitcoin being a digital version of the gold standard and why neither would work. He got roped into Greek politics, interesting inside recount of the crisis. " Yanis Varoufakis is a Greek economist who was a member of the Parliament of Greece between January and September 2015. He represented the ruling Syriza party and held the position of Minister of Finance for seven months.[3] He voted against the terms of the third bailout package for Greece.[4] In February 2016, Varoufakis launched the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25).[5]" The talk itself is 46 minutes, after that Q&A

The post above, courtesy of Rory, belongs to another thread about Greece. However I think it's worth re-posting it here for those interested in hearing first hand by the ex-finance minister Varoufakis on how he was treated by Dijsselbloem and others within the EU. After watching the video I feel more nauseous about staying in and I now am heavily leaning towards supporting a Brexit.

Euro court outlaws criticism of EU: Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU - Telegraph

Tymbeline 

Euro court outlaws criticism of EU: Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU - Telegraph

I recall this case (friend of a friend). Connolly took a human rights case afterwards in 2008, it was dismissed. https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3156/en/eu:-bernard-connolly-v.-commission-of-the-european-communities

The Telegraph (in 2001) is disingenuous. I'm not defending the EU but he was contractually obliged to request permission to publish his book even if it was not directly critical of his employer.

Journalistic sensationalism of an ordinary matter I fear as it only related to him as an employee, not a law affecting the general public.

This too is slightly off-topic but couldn't resist

EU Referendum: The First 100 Days of Brexit - Bloomberg

Article courtesy of HoopyTrading

The Daily Shot

The Daily Shot; June 17 - Global Macro Currents

[Scroll down several chart panes]