The Economist this week has an excellent discussion of the economic (who'dda thunk it?) elements of the referendum.

On stuff like this there is no good quality information, there are some better thought out opinions but it's all way too speculative to base anything on. One thing you can guarantee is that if we do leave then afterwards there will be some very impressive explanations as to why it turned out however it does turn out - most of that wont be true either.

Just look at the Scottish Referendum. All that talk about oil and then the price collapses. No-one knew and different world events might have seen the price soar - it still might or then again it might not. How can anyone possibly make a decision based on this stuff? The whole notion is quite ridiculous.

lol

Don't ask questions if you are just going to spit your dummy out and toss your toys out of the pram at the answer.

Speaking of contradictory posts, feel free to answer this contradiction on tax credits any time you chose. Hopefully, you'll just disappear for a month till the argument moves on like last time.

What talk? As far as I can remember the oil was never the basis of the economy, rather a small constituent part some would even have considered a bonus. Of course others did dress it up to be more than that with yada yada volatile yada yada uncertainty spew.

I thought Salmond said he'd borrow against projected future profits from Scotland's oil industry (making a huge assumption about oil price) and use it to invest.

To much journalist, too much agenda, much better to listen to an MP, also, read the economist, LOL who has got the time for that, just watch question time.

i thought he said we'd be running a surplus

Your not new to the internet, so no excuses for you trying to equate absolutely standard internet forum scorn for ultra ****ty replies with spitting dummies or whatever lame **** you are reduced too currently.

Also nice try with trying to equate the contradiction of a blatant lie with a non contradiction ignored by someone who OMFG missed a reply on 2+2.

You realise that if someone has to survive on £150 a month has that doubled to £300 its going to FEEL massive, but in objective terms still not vastly increase there QOL and social standing.

I dont want to AIDS necro that discussion but no doubt you will to try, but you are simply confusing subjective perception of increase in utility with all sorts of other factors.

Someone will really feel the utility of 800 to 900 as its a 12.5% increase in income and each pound has more utility when you are poor, however that increase will still not vastly improve QOL and social standing. Soon the person earning 900 will greatly resent that you can not work and still get 800. It will greatly undermine the social contract.

As I said working full time should vastly improve QOL over full core dole patrol, work or participation and contribution to the social system as compared to just leeching from it should show real concrete reward. That is exactly the expressed purpose of the TC system.

This in no way at all contradicts the fact that an extra 12.5% income a month has real utility to someone on 800 a month that will feel massive. That utility will just be to lessen slightly the toughness of budget pressure. Its the utility of going from really **** to a bit less ****. However in no sense does it represent a

So yea, not even remotely close to a contradiction .

You're probably right on this, considering you're a Scot. What are your thoughts now about the vote not to leave, in light of the slump in oil prices?

Talk about the economics of independence.

It was all yada yada as it is about the economics of withdrawing from the EU as well. This, like Scottish independence, is all about do we want to be part of the political union or not - for better and worse.

I think the economic argument is huge, if it was just about the political aspect, would be voting out with extreme prejudice.

Ultimately, a just the trade deal elements none of the other BS would be the ideal outcome for me personally.

Well I think it is, and going from a position of being fully engaged with the discussion, to leaving the thread for a month after I originally pointed out your contradictory views on the matter doesn't help your position.

The argument is huge but it's a huge amount of yada yada. How the economics of leaving/staying will work out depends on global economic forces that are way beyond prediction.

I will be voting in with extreme prejudice because nationalism suck and politically I don't care if you're German or British or Greek. I draw a line at the french

You might think it is, which counts for almost nothing, but its objectively not.

Grasping to the straw of you did not post is just lol pathetic.

Its utterly trivial to disprove its a contradiction, that I did not post my arguments above then means nothing, its not like I needed a month to think about it, lol.

Sometimes posts get missed that its.

You should stop trying to distract attention from being caught telling blatant lies and try and own that in some way and move on.

All the arguments about the non democratic nature of the EU are fairly sound imo. I take the Tony Benn line on that.

I dont like nationalism LDO, but at the same time strongly believe in de centralisation.

You are being way way over dismissive of the economic arguments imo.

My thoughts haven't changed. We missed the chance to take control of the oil and leave it the **** in the ground where it needs to be.

Well, at least you have moved on from name calling to try and add weight to your arguments. There is hope for you yet

I guess it was totally predictable you go full and add pot meet kettle to the rap sheet. Think you got the full set now.

You dont get to cry about personal attacks after your whole we all cant be geniuses line.

We are all waiting with baited breath for the insight you can afford us from your second hand summaries of last weeks Question Time.

If you cant be arsed to do the research to a level you find satisfactory then you should really not be voting for change or at all.

Its obvious huge amounts of lives/wellbeing rest on this vote (even if yours dont) so to vote willingly uninformed is reckless.

But to be fair at least your putting effort in to finding information. Maybe the way youve said "motivation" thats ground with me

I spend a good proportion of my working day reading and distilling information from peer reviewed journals. I'm very familiar with both the scientific process, and on a more cynical note how even scientists will seek to present their conclusions in the best possible light.

I'm therefore also aware how badly journalists misinterpret or even worse blatantly misrepresent peer reviewed work in order to create headlines.

So basically, while I appreciate getting information at source, after sifting through journals all day at work the last thing I feel motivated to do when I get home is repeat the process in my leisure time. I'm hoping this community will be a chance to get a less biased, better standard of information than you can get through usual media sources, as I've certainly found that to be the case in the past.

I for one can confirm I have no bias whatsoever. You can count on me, pal.

surely if the UK leaves then the EU is incentivised to make the split as difficult as possible to deter other countries from following suit or the EU could be in danger of dismantling as a whole. The idea that the EU will bend over backwards to accommodate a UK out of the EU seems ambitious at best given the increase in euro scepticism among other EU countries.

In a vacuum yes, but the EU zone economy sans Germany is completely in the toilet, I dont think they can afford to do anything that might potentially damage access to the UK market too much.