We do, with the Republic of Ireland... and we have a borderless travel treaty with them called the Common Travel Area which has existed in one form or another for nearly 100 years.
It's also a condition of the Ireland peace agreement that we keep it open. No EU, no peace. We'd have to renegotiate the deal, amongst all the others...
And if we leave it open? All the migrants will just flood through NI. The whole idea that we can control migration by leaving is absurd nonsense.
Not many people in my circles are excited about the upcoming presidential election - maybe democracy finally dies because the candidates are so uninspired that we simply don't go to the polls.
Non-EU Norway and Switzerland are at the top of nearly every measure in Europe: standard of living, equality, economy, green issues, credit rating, social progress, democracy, lack of poverty, lack of corruption.
Non-EU Iceland and EU Greece both had severe economic problems. Iceland jailed the bankers, and has overcame it's difficulties. Greece has been jailed BY the bankers - and will now be in debt bondage for decades, and has seen a resurgence of Fascism. Children are digging through rubbish for something to eat. This is in the EU.
Non-EU Moldova and Belarus are bottom of nearly every measure in Europe: Standard of living, equality, green issues, credit rating, social progress, democracy, lack of poverty, lack of corruption.
etc :)
I do think the EU handled Greek crisis pretty poorly, however but I think you're way overblowing the rest of the stuff you said.
Norway and Switzerland have both signed up to free movement of people in order to access the single market. If the UK votes to leave I think that, given the nature of the campaign, that has to be considered a vote against free movement of people, which almost certainly will leave it outside the single market, which is a very different place.
> Non-EU Norway and Switzerland are at the top of nearly every measure in Europe
But what is the causality here? Maybe they didn't want to become a member because they were at the top to begin with.
That doesn't say anything about benefits of membership for other countries. It's even possible that membership would be beneficial for Norway and Switzerland, people just don't want to take unnecessary risk.
Yes and no. You can't compare Britain with Greece.
Britain is gaining from the EU while Greece is not.
Greece became part of Euro, and Euro being an expensive currency for Greece and its needs lead Greece into chaos.
Britain is not a part of Euro and will never exchange £ for it.
As for Norway and Switzerland, well Switzerland's economy was always good, too much money being laundered there.
Norway and the other Scandi countries do have a better way of living, in EU or not.
So I do get your point, and its fair to an extend but you can't compare oranges and apples.
I personally believe (have the right to vote in the UK) that Britain is gaining much more from being a member of the EU than losing. Same goes for countries like Germany. Now could you even imagine Germany getting out of the EU... Germany profited by the EU (same as the UK since London became the hub of finance between EU and the world).
Norway and Switzerland both have European free trade treaties that mandate compliance with trade regulations, free movement of people, etc.
If Brexit actually wants to stop EU free movement, which seems to be a majot motivation, it will need to withdraw from the free trade area (or negotiate a unicorn deal that no other nation has managed). At that point Norway and Switzerland will no longer be meaningful comparisons.
Norway is also near the top of the key measure of oil revenue in Europe. Switzerland has had higher GDP than major EU economies since before the EU [1]. These are poor comparisons to the UK.
Norway and Switzerland are in the EEA and Schengen, so it doesn't really matter whether they are in the EU or out of it, they benefit. They have to pay into the EU without any representation though. Not the best deal in my eyes. Note that both have agreed to Schengen, which has dramatically eased
Iceland and Greece have had economic trouble, but because of vastly different reasons (insert any link to Paul Krugman analyses of the European debt crisis here). The Troika is also not a product of the EU, it is a product of the Euro and the lack of a fiscal oversight complementing the monetary oversight (ECB).
Stay in. There is no chance of this kind of stuff happening in the UK because you aren't in the Euro.
Norway is still a member of the EEA so the Free Movement of Persons policy applies to them[1]. The "leave" campaigners in the UK have made that policy a central point of their campaign - oversimplifying it: immigration is bad, let's take control of our borders. The only way the could do that is by also not being part of the EEA, which could deal a massive blow to the British economy. The same applies to Iceland - it's a member of the EEA [1].
We can all agree that Switzerland is not comparable to the UK, but even if you ignore cultural, political, and economic differences, Switzerland is also a member of the single market, therefore every EU citizen enjoy full freedom of movement, i.e.: free to travel, to live and to work in Switzerland[2] and vice-versa in the UK [3].
Greece's did not have their own currency, Iceland does. Britain also has its own currency and its place in the EU is quite different from that of Greece. Comparing apples to oranges.
Non-EU Norway is a 5 million nation sitting on a ton of oil. Which in turn takes that oil profits and puts them in a social fund, which reduces the main stressor of all socialistic systems (pensions). If you think that you will convince BP to do the same, good luck. Especially considering that there is nothing stopping you from doing the same already.
Switzerland, 8 million, is also landlocked in between some of the best EU nations, all of which trade with it in an EU-like agreement, including free movement, and its manufacturing economy abides pretty much to Every EU regulation. What this means, is that again nothing prevents the UK to have been Switzerland, other than, super politely put, the population's innate inability to be as productive, or imaginative in thinking useful products like the Swiss do.
Greece, which ironically is my original home country so I know Very well, is a corrupt mafiocrasy. (rather Russian like in fact) It would have failed IN or OUT of the EU anyway. This however is not the EU's fault, as evident by the fact that plenty of EU countries started worse than Greece, and are now better (better as in gdp/capita), including Estonia, Lithuania & Slovakia.
If anything, this disparity is able proof that EU nations actually have more than enough sovereignty to fuck or unfuck themselves as much as they want. Its just that every time something good happens politicians say "we did it" but every time something bad happens they say "totes the EU fault, holding us down!"
To sum up. You want to be Norway. Make a referendum to throw BP's profits in a fund. (Not that you have the oil reserve anyway) You want to be Switzerland, think of more useful chemicals rather than watching x-factor (I am not even kidding. Chemicals are one of the best Swiss exports apparently). You don't want to be Greece, don't just take EU development money and use it just for politician's villas, bouzouki and civil servants appointment for votes. Simples.
To get to the bottom of tax avoidance, people have to see and feel the benefit of paying tax. In Greece they simply don't, and it hasn't gotten any better in recent years.
The average German can easily list the benefits they receive from their government.
So basically we have UK businesses selling to europe expressing their interest in keeping 0 tax trade agreements with europe. Their position makes sense from their perspective.
How about UK businesses which DO NOT export and have to compete with low cost european countries instead?
How about UK employees which also have to compete with low cost labor from low cost european countries?
getting out is not going to change anything that you mentioned, its like Boris trying to underline that British Steel was EU's fault... I mean what?... Its clearly the case were production has a cut back globally and the need of steel is not there anymore plus China overproducing... how's that EU?
For the UK employees that have to compete with low cost labor... I don't think that's the case mate, its an open market, if you are good at what you are doing you are going to get valued.
Lets see what you and Boris are going to say to all those people working in Universities that are going to shut down as their main source of income are EU students.
Yes if you are very skilled you increase your chance to find a job, but this simplistic reasoning does not apply to every industry. In some cases you can be extremely skilled professionally and still be jobless if you have to compete with an equally competent (or less..) employee in a country where labor is way cheaper. The competition becomes especially unfair in this case.
About the example of universities, I dont advocate closing borders. I believe in self determination and industry/country to country bilateral agreements. It might be more difficult to put in place but it reflects people best interest and it is democratic. If UK universities believe its in their best interest to allow more foreign students, then they should lobby for this. There will be winnders and losers thats for sure. Not everyone would be better off. But I believe that the overall effect would be positive.
Lastly, please consider the many countries in the world who are succesful without relying on major trade agreements. Instead they have negotiated many bilateral trade agreements with other countries. These reflect their best interest, for each industry.
Sorry, but is it the EUs fault that UK businesses tend to hire cheaper European labor? Does the EU tell you that you have to hire the Romanian guy instead of the British? Is there a law enforced by the EU to do so?
And people forget that cheap labor creates lower prices on the market. Are you willing to pay more even double the price for a commodity just because it was made by non-immigrants?
Not to mention, that most immigrants aren't staying for long term. They go do the work, generate GDP and after a few years they go back to friends and family. Very few have the intentions to stay.
Is it the EUs fault that British stores and businesses buy the goods from low cost EU countries? If you would have a grocery store, would you buy and sell food that was produced in Britain, but comes with a much higher cost, or would you get it from somewhere else cheaper and get it without the costs of shipping from country to the other because of the free trade?
The EU helps everyone, but it's not their fault if businesses use these to their advantage.
I always think that bringing up the price of goods argument is not always the best approach when talking about immigrant labour.
The fact is that in most Western countries (a) the workforce is ageing rapidly, (b) birth rates are low and dropping and (c) young people simply don't want cheap, low skilled jobs.
So people just need to understand that without immigrant labour people aren't going to be able to rely on the quality of the life in the future. More specifically their pension, social security and decent hospitals.
You're right, but this is one part of the equitation.
The cheap labor will give you a lower price at the end. If it wouldn't then you wouldn't see the 'made in China' text on literally everything.
There was a massive debate about immigrants picking British strawberries. And a lot of the people were going crazy why the farmers don't employ British workers and that EU can go and fuck itself.
It's fine and all, but they forget a lot of things. It's not the EU who told the farmer to get cheap immigrant labor. The farmer saves lots of money because of the cheap labor. This keeps the price down of the strawberries when you go buy a pack in a store. The work is seasonal, so it's not a permanent job and keeps the people occupied only for a couple of weeks.
Some people get a fit when they see a small pack of British strawberries for 2 pounds. Imagine how enraged they would be to have the same amount for 4.
These people, who always blame someone else then their own people (for instance why aren't you blaming the British farmer, business, whatever) would be the first ones crying why are the things more expensive now?!
The whole economy is like nature, you take out one small part and everything changes.
In brexit I see the typical 'The True Scotsman Fallacy'. or should we call it the 'True British Fallacy' now? We are great and everybody is crap and it's always someone else's fault not ours.
- How about UK businesses which DO NOT export and have to compete with low cost european countries instead?
They will still need to compete against lower cost products being imported as it's highly unlikely that those goods will be heavily taxed once UK is out of the EU (and the EEA for that matter).
- How about UK employees which also have to compete with low cost labor from low cost european countries?
If the UK still intends to export to the EU (which accounts for a big chunk of the UK economy), they will still have to compete with low cost labour, but with the added cost of tariffs since they also want out of the EEA.
There's zero substance in the article. They use scary words like "massively", phrases like "more trade", "more jobs", but don't say specifically how many and why.
I've listened to the arguments from both sides, and the proponents of Brexit tend to give more specific reasons, while the opponent's seem to be stuck in the scare tactics and propaganda, like this article.
Take changing the terms of trade, for instance. They make it sound like the end of the world. In reality terms of trade change all the time - new laws, new agreements (TTPP recently, for example).
Brexit folk give just as much vagueness as Remain folk - the trust is, nobody can guarantee anything whether we remain or leave the EU.
Some Brexit folk have repeatedly claimed MEPs aren't elected, which is plainly false. Furthermore every EU law must must be ratified by all member states. They've also claimed that Turkey would join, which is unlikely in our lifetimes.
OTOH, some Remain folk plainly think that Brexit is some kind of racist plot: as another commenter mentions, businesses that don't trade with the rest of the EU don't benefit as much as those of us that do, and that's a very reasonable viewpoint.
I'm Remain - like most of London tech. My reasons are that that London draws the smartest and best people from all over Europe to start businesses here and pay taxes, and that should continue. An Australian style points system is flawed - imagine rating programmers based on their University degrees rather than their actual aptitude. However I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint.
I think the big value with staying in the EU is passporting and the single common market. Norway and Sweden both pay to be part of this market instrument.
Isn't it quite obviously both? Here are the business leaders who think Britain's stronger remaining part of the EU, and you may/may not be persuaded by their arguments.
(precursor I'm in Japan so I don't have a chip in this game), but I do worry for my friends in England.
My wife works for (edit removed: large vehicle manufacturer ), and she has mentioned that her company is quite nervous about the brexit due to having manufacturing plants there and worrying about the cost of importing raw materials if Britain leaves, due to new import taxes.
Take this with a bag of salt, aa i havnt verified any of this, but it's something I hadn't thought of before, and I thought it may spark a decent debate on HN.
Yeah I've heard similar things about said Japanese manufacturers. One of the big reasons they are regionally headquartered in the UK is because it is part of the EU. Given that cars make up a sizable fraction (~10% I think) of our economy, it would be a disaster if even 1 major company left for foreign shores over this.
Speaking from an IT perspective, I know of quite a few companies that have brought forward datacentre builds in the Frankfurt region, prepping for a Brexit just in case. They have to do with business with the EU and that involves complying with EU data protection regulations which require the data stored in an EU country. There's a lot of business going to disappear overseas if Brexit happens.
If that's the case+ and I have no reason to believe it isn't), what reasons could they have for leaving?
I have been listening to BBC world news, and whenever the subject comes up, the people speaking for an exit don't really seem to put forth a good argument( I hear a lot of 'keep our nationality" and 'we founded parliamentary democracy ' - but they don't seem like a good reason to leave).
I am genuinely interested in an evidence based argument for leaving and whether the benefits of leaving out strip the benefits of staying.
The most sound argument I have found is the democratic deficit created by being within the EU and the delegation of authority to the EU on certain areas of law. The elephant in the room is that we seem to have a house of 800 unelected lords and a government in power event though only 34% of the electorate voted for them.
Arguments around "putting the great back into Great Britain" and "taking control" seem to stem, as much from xenophobia and 6 years of government austerity policies.
I really wish there was a good, logical, evidence based approach to comparing both positions.
> The one place I was hoping not to see Brexit was on HN
Not sure if you mean Brexit the argument or the topic.
If you mean the topic: a quote from one of the founders of ef, where Magic Pony was created: "leaving the European Union will have sweeping negative effects on British startups' ability to hire, fundraise and access international markets."
dang: the article has been flagged unnecessarily. It's topical, HN worthy, factual and relevant - the discussion just has some very heated opinions against. Can you check it out?
After so much campaigning, it seems plain clear that the UK is actually leaching in a big way from the EU. The UK is a sore player, only wanting to take part when there is a clear and direct benefit, is not happy to play by the rules, always requesting special treatment, and continuously complaining of how bad we are treating them. Not a team player at all.
I am not sure if the UK is better off leaving, but we in the EU will do great getting rid of the grumpy bully.
51 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadhttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-business-benefits-...
I guarantee if we had a land border with Europe, someone on the leave campaign would be talking about building a wall :D
If Trump is elected, he may have to build a second wall along the Canadian (Canadienne) border - to keep people in the U.S.
And if we leave it open? All the migrants will just flood through NI. The whole idea that we can control migration by leaving is absurd nonsense.
Non-EU Iceland and EU Greece both had severe economic problems. Iceland jailed the bankers, and has overcame it's difficulties. Greece has been jailed BY the bankers - and will now be in debt bondage for decades, and has seen a resurgence of Fascism. Children are digging through rubbish for something to eat. This is in the EU.
etc :)
I do think the EU handled Greek crisis pretty poorly, however but I think you're way overblowing the rest of the stuff you said.
Greece has the Euro hence its troubles. I totally agree the eurozone is a terrible mess and should be dismantled.
So the UK leaving the EU (and the EEA) will cause damage. Your descriptions of the EU are misleading.
But what is the causality here? Maybe they didn't want to become a member because they were at the top to begin with.
That doesn't say anything about benefits of membership for other countries. It's even possible that membership would be beneficial for Norway and Switzerland, people just don't want to take unnecessary risk.
Greece became part of Euro, and Euro being an expensive currency for Greece and its needs lead Greece into chaos.
Britain is not a part of Euro and will never exchange £ for it.
As for Norway and Switzerland, well Switzerland's economy was always good, too much money being laundered there. Norway and the other Scandi countries do have a better way of living, in EU or not.
So I do get your point, and its fair to an extend but you can't compare oranges and apples.
I personally believe (have the right to vote in the UK) that Britain is gaining much more from being a member of the EU than losing. Same goes for countries like Germany. Now could you even imagine Germany getting out of the EU... Germany profited by the EU (same as the UK since London became the hub of finance between EU and the world).
If Brexit actually wants to stop EU free movement, which seems to be a majot motivation, it will need to withdraw from the free trade area (or negotiate a unicorn deal that no other nation has managed). At that point Norway and Switzerland will no longer be meaningful comparisons.
[1] https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9....
Iceland and Greece have had economic trouble, but because of vastly different reasons (insert any link to Paul Krugman analyses of the European debt crisis here). The Troika is also not a product of the EU, it is a product of the Euro and the lack of a fiscal oversight complementing the monetary oversight (ECB).
Stay in. There is no chance of this kind of stuff happening in the UK because you aren't in the Euro.
We can all agree that Switzerland is not comparable to the UK, but even if you ignore cultural, political, and economic differences, Switzerland is also a member of the single market, therefore every EU citizen enjoy full freedom of movement, i.e.: free to travel, to live and to work in Switzerland[2] and vice-versa in the UK [3].
Greece's did not have their own currency, Iceland does. Britain also has its own currency and its place in the EU is quite different from that of Greece. Comparing apples to oranges.
1. http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons/persons
2. https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu-efta/
3. https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea
Switzerland, 8 million, is also landlocked in between some of the best EU nations, all of which trade with it in an EU-like agreement, including free movement, and its manufacturing economy abides pretty much to Every EU regulation. What this means, is that again nothing prevents the UK to have been Switzerland, other than, super politely put, the population's innate inability to be as productive, or imaginative in thinking useful products like the Swiss do.
Greece, which ironically is my original home country so I know Very well, is a corrupt mafiocrasy. (rather Russian like in fact) It would have failed IN or OUT of the EU anyway. This however is not the EU's fault, as evident by the fact that plenty of EU countries started worse than Greece, and are now better (better as in gdp/capita), including Estonia, Lithuania & Slovakia.
If anything, this disparity is able proof that EU nations actually have more than enough sovereignty to fuck or unfuck themselves as much as they want. Its just that every time something good happens politicians say "we did it" but every time something bad happens they say "totes the EU fault, holding us down!"
To sum up. You want to be Norway. Make a referendum to throw BP's profits in a fund. (Not that you have the oil reserve anyway) You want to be Switzerland, think of more useful chemicals rather than watching x-factor (I am not even kidding. Chemicals are one of the best Swiss exports apparently). You don't want to be Greece, don't just take EU development money and use it just for politician's villas, bouzouki and civil servants appointment for votes. Simples.
The level of tax avoidance is completely unacceptable: 24.3% of GDP versus 13.5% in Germany in 2012.
If the government had twice the revenue it would've been in a far better position.
To get to the bottom of tax avoidance, people have to see and feel the benefit of paying tax. In Greece they simply don't, and it hasn't gotten any better in recent years.
The average German can easily list the benefits they receive from their government.
How about UK businesses which DO NOT export and have to compete with low cost european countries instead?
How about UK employees which also have to compete with low cost labor from low cost european countries?
Is this also "great for the UK?"
[1] https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatisti...
For the UK employees that have to compete with low cost labor... I don't think that's the case mate, its an open market, if you are good at what you are doing you are going to get valued.
Lets see what you and Boris are going to say to all those people working in Universities that are going to shut down as their main source of income are EU students.
About the example of universities, I dont advocate closing borders. I believe in self determination and industry/country to country bilateral agreements. It might be more difficult to put in place but it reflects people best interest and it is democratic. If UK universities believe its in their best interest to allow more foreign students, then they should lobby for this. There will be winnders and losers thats for sure. Not everyone would be better off. But I believe that the overall effect would be positive.
Lastly, please consider the many countries in the world who are succesful without relying on major trade agreements. Instead they have negotiated many bilateral trade agreements with other countries. These reflect their best interest, for each industry.
...or import ...or use goods and services reliant on imports.
> ... and have to compete
How do you propose avoiding having to compete? Isolationism is a short-term solution.
Edit: ...a short-term solution AT BEST
Judging by your surname your ancestors were also fleeing from one of those low cost european countries.
And people forget that cheap labor creates lower prices on the market. Are you willing to pay more even double the price for a commodity just because it was made by non-immigrants?
Not to mention, that most immigrants aren't staying for long term. They go do the work, generate GDP and after a few years they go back to friends and family. Very few have the intentions to stay.
Is it the EUs fault that British stores and businesses buy the goods from low cost EU countries? If you would have a grocery store, would you buy and sell food that was produced in Britain, but comes with a much higher cost, or would you get it from somewhere else cheaper and get it without the costs of shipping from country to the other because of the free trade?
The EU helps everyone, but it's not their fault if businesses use these to their advantage.
Hate the player and not the game, as they say.
The fact is that in most Western countries (a) the workforce is ageing rapidly, (b) birth rates are low and dropping and (c) young people simply don't want cheap, low skilled jobs.
So people just need to understand that without immigrant labour people aren't going to be able to rely on the quality of the life in the future. More specifically their pension, social security and decent hospitals.
The cheap labor will give you a lower price at the end. If it wouldn't then you wouldn't see the 'made in China' text on literally everything.
There was a massive debate about immigrants picking British strawberries. And a lot of the people were going crazy why the farmers don't employ British workers and that EU can go and fuck itself.
It's fine and all, but they forget a lot of things. It's not the EU who told the farmer to get cheap immigrant labor. The farmer saves lots of money because of the cheap labor. This keeps the price down of the strawberries when you go buy a pack in a store. The work is seasonal, so it's not a permanent job and keeps the people occupied only for a couple of weeks.
Some people get a fit when they see a small pack of British strawberries for 2 pounds. Imagine how enraged they would be to have the same amount for 4.
These people, who always blame someone else then their own people (for instance why aren't you blaming the British farmer, business, whatever) would be the first ones crying why are the things more expensive now?!
The whole economy is like nature, you take out one small part and everything changes.
In brexit I see the typical 'The True Scotsman Fallacy'. or should we call it the 'True British Fallacy' now? We are great and everybody is crap and it's always someone else's fault not ours.
They will still need to compete against lower cost products being imported as it's highly unlikely that those goods will be heavily taxed once UK is out of the EU (and the EEA for that matter).
- How about UK employees which also have to compete with low cost labor from low cost european countries?
If the UK still intends to export to the EU (which accounts for a big chunk of the UK economy), they will still have to compete with low cost labour, but with the added cost of tariffs since they also want out of the EEA.
I've listened to the arguments from both sides, and the proponents of Brexit tend to give more specific reasons, while the opponent's seem to be stuck in the scare tactics and propaganda, like this article.
Take changing the terms of trade, for instance. They make it sound like the end of the world. In reality terms of trade change all the time - new laws, new agreements (TTPP recently, for example).
Some Brexit folk have repeatedly claimed MEPs aren't elected, which is plainly false. Furthermore every EU law must must be ratified by all member states. They've also claimed that Turkey would join, which is unlikely in our lifetimes.
OTOH, some Remain folk plainly think that Brexit is some kind of racist plot: as another commenter mentions, businesses that don't trade with the rest of the EU don't benefit as much as those of us that do, and that's a very reasonable viewpoint.
I'm Remain - like most of London tech. My reasons are that that London draws the smartest and best people from all over Europe to start businesses here and pay taxes, and that should continue. An Australian style points system is flawed - imagine rating programmers based on their University degrees rather than their actual aptitude. However I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint.
My wife works for (edit removed: large vehicle manufacturer ), and she has mentioned that her company is quite nervous about the brexit due to having manufacturing plants there and worrying about the cost of importing raw materials if Britain leaves, due to new import taxes.
Take this with a bag of salt, aa i havnt verified any of this, but it's something I hadn't thought of before, and I thought it may spark a decent debate on HN.
Speaking from an IT perspective, I know of quite a few companies that have brought forward datacentre builds in the Frankfurt region, prepping for a Brexit just in case. They have to do with business with the EU and that involves complying with EU data protection regulations which require the data stored in an EU country. There's a lot of business going to disappear overseas if Brexit happens.
I have been listening to BBC world news, and whenever the subject comes up, the people speaking for an exit don't really seem to put forth a good argument( I hear a lot of 'keep our nationality" and 'we founded parliamentary democracy ' - but they don't seem like a good reason to leave).
I am genuinely interested in an evidence based argument for leaving and whether the benefits of leaving out strip the benefits of staying.
The most sound argument I have found is the democratic deficit created by being within the EU and the delegation of authority to the EU on certain areas of law. The elephant in the room is that we seem to have a house of 800 unelected lords and a government in power event though only 34% of the electorate voted for them.
Arguments around "putting the great back into Great Britain" and "taking control" seem to stem, as much from xenophobia and 6 years of government austerity policies.
I really wish there was a good, logical, evidence based approach to comparing both positions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/eu-referendum-lea...
If people don't listen to evidence, then how can anyone have a proper debate?
Not sure if you mean Brexit the argument or the topic.
If you mean the topic: a quote from one of the founders of ef, where Magic Pony was created: "leaving the European Union will have sweeping negative effects on British startups' ability to hire, fundraise and access international markets."
If you mean the argument, then fair enough.
I hadn't considered the impact on start-ups. Oh joy.
I am not sure if the UK is better off leaving, but we in the EU will do great getting rid of the grumpy bully.