...in the year 2030...
"We can't go back to the 2000s, because the world has moved on. Technology and the world's systems have moved on."
See how it is? You whole argument begs the question; you can't know that the way things are now is they way they ought always to be. Markets aren't like drugs trials; there is no control group to compare to. We don't know that joining the EU was a better choice than not joining; you just assume it was because you're here, now, living it, and it's 'basically ok'. You don't know that without the EU you wouldn't have become a shoeless crack whore, and neither do you know that you wouldnt have become the next Richard Branson. So it is with Brexit. The IFS cannot make long range economic forecasts anymore than the Met Office can make long range weather forecasts.
We can go by evidence, which points to us being worse off.
We do know the EU was a better choice, owing to this thing called history. This isn't an assumption, its based upon evidence. We look at the trade that is set up, the social programs, the social mobility etc.
You mean people in the EU like to buy our high-value products, but the rest of the world kinda doesn't? Why is that?
People in Papau New Guinea would buy our high value goods at a similar rate that people in the EU would? Really?
The point is that our main markets are EU countries, the US, China and Japan. Why? Because we can compete on high value products. Want to set up trade deals with the rest of the world to increase our access? Great, but trade deals frequently take a long time, and this is one of the reasons that Brexit is causing such unrest. But we would also be at a disadvantage in trade talks, as we are a lot smaller than the EU.
This is one of the reasons why Brexit is such a bad idea. Yes, there maybe the odd instance where we are worse off due to some trade deal, but on average, we are far better off, and this is why only 1 out 14 economists claim we will be better off. One claims a neutral stance, while the rest claim we will be worse off. 12 out 14 economists.
Or are you like Gove, who think we can safely ignore experts?
I also work in manufacturing, and the EU is a burden to us as we mostly export outside it.
And what do you mean by 'access'? Even Papau New Guinea has access to the single market!
See above
Why do you want to make more rules? Kinda sounds like you think rules are a pain, so we might as well be the ones making them, which is a weak argument for any club.
Did you miss the bit where it was pointed out that we would be a rule taker, rather than a rule maker? Not just when we want to trade, but in many cases it will not be worth not following EU's rules in manufacturing standards. And environmental standards don't look to change any time soon (which is probably a good thing given what we were like before IPC)
We live in a global economy, where the big players get the better trade deals. As a member of the EU, we benefit from that arrangement, and the consumer in the UK benefits from cheap goods.
Maybe you're the sort of person who likes lots of taxes, lots of state provision, and rules/intervention. It sounds like it. That's fine.
I'm not like you. I wouldn't like to live in a country where one billionair pays all the tax so the rest can live freely on benefits (the logical extreme of you point above); I'd prefer to live in a country with very low tax and great personal responsibility. That's just me. And it's a purely subjective, emotive attitude; neither of us can use logic or reason to argue how big government ought to be and how much tax is needed.
You like small government? Fine. But Brexit will bring a huge growth in our civil service. We currently have about 439,323. After Brexit, we will have to replace the services that the EU provide (some of which I have listed earlier). This is a huge pointless inefficiency that will be implemented, as it will serve less people.
How many examples of UK government inefficiency do you want?
Budget shortfall, or public overspending?
The NHS will absord as much money as you care to throw at it. On judgement day when the horsemen of the apocalypse come to smite the nations, you'll still be claiming the NHS is underfunded. Here's an idea; Maybe the NHS has enough money already, and it's the people who demand too much?
Here's an idea: Stop. Subsidising. Everything.
You want small government, but what about the provision of the needy? The vulnerable? The protection of the environment? Defence? A developed country is a complex place, but if you really want to see a country overburdened with beaurocracy, look at Switzerland. They envy us for our lack of red tape etc. We have a lot of rules - yes we may drop some, but we are not going to go back to some previous time where you could make goods with a lower standard in safety etc.
The recent problems with the NHS have come about because of Tory mis-management. It needs more money now than it used to years ago, as we are living longer, and we have more advanced treatments.
(Just remember that it is only a bit of fun)
