[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by nik-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0260242c-3...#axzz4CVl0Wc92

Read.

Stop getting duped.

The economic claim was never valid. If you want to put more weight on sovereignty and immigration, I totally accept that. You're not going to win on economics because no one except the Brexit vote committees agree with you. That article is just literal stating the claims of the Brexiters. Repeating their claims in a Vox article isn't proof.

I saw this article earlier and can pretty much debunk every argument with basic logic.

The EU has been good for Britain

Even the article disputes this as a Correlation vs Causation type argument. Regardless, their economy and infrastructure is probably the strongest in the EU right now and there's nothing to say they can't maintain.

What trade deals would replace EU membership?

So the main argument against is that it will take time to form new trade agreements. I don't think it will take as long as people think. Being apart from the EU doesn't mean Countries will no longer want to trade with you. It means Britain can set it's own trade agreements and not be limited to the EU regulations. This could even make for more beneficial agreements for other Countries as well.

Could Britain cut migration significantly?

Britain isn't going to stop migration just because it's out of the EU. But they will have control over who gets through and how many at a time. So basically exactly like Canada except a higher likelihood of getting accepted. Migration is so rampant in the UK right now that their economy and infrastructure can't keep up. They are an island after all and there is a finite amount of space.

Do migrants reduce UK wages?

This was a very loosely based argument that doesn't sway one way or the other. Regardless of whether or not wages increase/decrease, it's causing a greater number of unemployed UK citizens.

Are EU regulations a yoke around the neck of the UK economy?

Another argument that has no substance. They say there is the option for EU countries to have less regulations, but people are still saying it's too many regulations to have to deal with.

What about the £350m a week sent to Brussels?

So they don't dispute that money is given to Brussels every week, just that the original figure left out the partial rebate that the UK receives. It's still a lot of money and nobody can say for certain that it's money well spent.

Put it all together economists. What do you get?

So they are saying one group of economists fear the long term consequences, while another group believes it can be beneficial if done correctly.

A whole lot of flimsy arguments, whereas there are several concrete arguments for leaving.

It's impossible to say what will happen which is why a lot of voters chose to leave. They want to see what happens and are willing to go back to the EU if it doesn't work. One things for sure is that the EU would be happy to have them back.