Try the New Statesman comment pieces?

Prospective policy analysis is difficult even for very simple policies that change one thing (eg what's the effect of changing maternity leave on child outcomes and female labour participation rates). The Brexit is anything but a simple policy. The data doesn't reveal the answer with minimal assumptions, you need a ton of strong assumptions and models to forecast the effect of leaving the EU under various post-Brexit trade/cooperation scenarios. Can non-experts really distinguish between good assumptions and bad assumptions in a complex analysis? I don't think so. I think they're going to believe whatever analysis agrees with their gut instinct, if they bother to read any analysis at all. Most won't.

For anyone who's really interested, here's a summary of the expected consequences of Brexit under an optimistic and a pessimistic cooperation scenario, from the centre for economic performance at the LSE:

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa016.pdf

I thought Hilary Benn was much more of a centre-left politician? (certainly compared to the other 3)

probably referring to his father

No, I was referring to Hilary (his father was probably the most famous outer going). I just meant that he was a somewhat left-winger who is generally credited for being a pretty decent human being.

This is about the message I'm seeing in the media (tories on the right v tories on the hard right). My own preference is insignificant.

And none of the above would be correct.

hi, as someone who has not yet formed a strong stance on EU referendum, what are the most convincing arguments for/against?

On there now and first article I see is "Dave v Boris"

Links to any worthwhile reading would be appreciated.

Bad for the economy of we leave but more control over immigration (which is also bad for the economy, depending how it is done) if we do. Basically.

Whether a convincing argument is a good argument is another question in itself.

Good article by Simon Jenkins in today's Standard. Though I sped read it, he was basically saying that although he's in favour of a good EU he thinks it's unreachable from its current state, and advocates a Brexit in the belief that it will precipitate the end of EU v1.0, when the UK will be able to be instrumental in defining and forming EU v2 which will be far better that what's happened ie joining a questionable model that was already 20 years old and that we had a limited say in reforming.

In favour of staying: better for businesses, travel, work opportunities, and less isolationist

The world changes fast, outing the current model based on 20 yr old parameters is probably not a bad idea. If it kicks some in the pants for fundamental changes (instead of patch-work Band-Aids) and upgrades in a reasonable time frame it could prove to be one of those sickening cliché win-win situations for the UK.

Had to make a generalist post that sounds good but has no real substance. This is politics after all.

The article I referred to:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/co...-a3187276.html

"When I voted “for Europe” in 1975, it was still a dynamic framework for trading between sovereign states. Now the EU is an archaic church in chronic need of Reformation. It will clearly not get it from a British In-vote. It needs disruptive trauma."


(Though I'm still voting to stay in.)

I don't think in 4 months, even the most diligent follower of the debate will have any clear idea of the implications either way.

The consensus in the markets is that Brexit = pretty bad.

Pound has taken a beating against the dollar.

Also:

Both parties using national security as an argument is tilting the **** out of me.

Certainly in the short term, I think the consensus is that leaving will be slightly -ev economically. But then if we stay and migration continues above a sustainable level, where is all the money going to come from to build the infrastructure capable of sustaining the increased population?

So bigger class sizes, longer waiting lists, increasing house prices - quality of life will arguably be increasingly worse by remaining in the EU.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-artic...EU-immigration

Should have negotiated a special tax band for immigration workers to up the take.

How much have we paid the EU in net subsidies between 2001-11? In recent times:

So exactly £41bn between 2008-13.

In addition, I have consistently argued that immigration is a good thing economically ITT.

If you are going to vote purely for short-term economic reasons, then the only vote is to stay in AINEC. But I think looking to the future then things might not be so rosey in economic terms, and also I don't think this government will spend the money to give the country the infrastructure to cope.

if it's good economically, then the infrastructure that needs to be build for education, housing, healthcare per capita not to decrease can be funded

No. This isn't arguable. Migration is always a benefit in aggregate.

Some of that money is given back though, its not like the UK does not receive any funding in numerous forms from the EU.

Can it? Does the £2bn a year net benefit of migration cover the 336,000 who came here last year? cigarette packet calculations says that's £6000 per migrant, so not a lot to cover all those needs. (obviously this is miles out on a per migrant basis, but I expect the true figure is much lower i.e. total benefit divided by total migration)

Tell that to the girls who were sexually assaulted and robbed in Cologne. Ok, that's a Daily Mail hot-take, but you can't say these things are unequivocal. Otherwise, no one would ever complain about migrants, ever, and that's clearly not the case.

Those figures were net of the rebate. I know there are other, less tangible benefits but workout out if we get VFM is a value judgement, and where you fall really will point to where you will vote.

Wat?

The rebate does not refer to the funding that the UK receives from the EU.

The UK receives 25-30%~ of what it gives the EU (after rebate) back in form of grants/farm subsidies etc.

66M to the development of the West Coast Main Line, 2.5M Grant to Roles Royce, about a ~billion has been given to Cornwall over the last 10 years or so in economic development grants. There are a **** ton of direct grants to the UK from the EU.

This. One of the less touted benefits is that a lot of this funding goes to 'unfashionable' areas and projects. UK based funding is very biased towards large conurbations (that's where the electorate lives ldo) and it's hard to get investment in more rural / deprived areas.

Deprived areas in Cornwall, of which there are plenty, have had a ton of money from the EU and there are visible, tangible benefits in terms of jobs and infrastructure.

I guess its a legitimate question whether the money could be spent better if it was just kept in the UK.

I have seen how the money is spent first hand (live in Cornwall, have worked for OB1 projects) and the way the money is spent is far from optimal, but that said you only have to look at the many ****ups our own government commit when spending money on development projects etc.

To be sure if you live in Cornwall and vote to leave the EU its turkeys voting for Christmas, because I doubt we would have got the pure money love from central gov that we got from the EU. Other regions probably fare worse in that equation.

How Low Could Pound Go in a `Brexit'? Economists See 1985 Levels

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...s-say-try-1985