The 'No to the EU' campaign

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Agreed.
If the UK is helping prop up the EU & we leave, I don't see how the potential collapse of the market with which we do 2/3 of our trade with would help us in the longer term.
Two thirds? Half more like. Also, before the EU, did the countries of the EU and the UK not engage in trading activities? Collapse is emotive spin in terms of trade.

ONS said:
Despite changes in the composition of the global economy, the EU in 2014 accounted for 44.6% of UK exports of goods and services, and 53.2% of UK imports of goods and services.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/international-transactions/outward-foreign-affiliates-statistics/how-important-is-the-european-union-to-uk-trade-and-investment-/sty-eu.html

Then there's the Rotterdam Effect - trade in goods with the Netherlands and therefore the EU is artificially inflated by those goods dispatched from or arriving in Rotterdam despite the ultimate destination or country of origin being located outside the EU.



FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
Agreed.
If the UK is helping prop up the EU & we leave, I don't see how the potential collapse of the market with which we do 2/3 of our trade with would help us in the longer term.
Two thirds? Half more like. Also, before the EU, did the countries of the EU and the UK not engage in trading activities? Collapse is emotive spin in terms of trade.

ONS said:
Despite changes in the composition of the global economy, the EU in 2014 accounted for 44.6% of UK exports of goods and services, and 53.2% of UK imports of goods and services.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/international-transactions/outward-foreign-affiliates-statistics/how-important-is-the-european-union-to-uk-trade-and-investment-/sty-eu.html

Then there's the Rotterdam Effect - trade in goods with the Netherlands and therefore the EU is artificially inflated by those goods dispatched from or arriving in Rotterdam despite the ultimate destination or country of origin being located outside the EU.
Agreed TB , Z was attempting to conflate two issues which are to some extent connected but absolutely not mutually dependent. It's more of the FUD tactic and the more I see the in arguments considered in that light the less effective the campaign.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
V8 Fettler said:
Impossible without reasonably accurate financial forecasts. Which will probably not be issued, leaving the decision making process based on a manic media frenzy and pontificating politicos. Ridiculous for something so important.
How do you propose such a forecast would be made?
I propose that the forecasts are made as accurately as is reasonable. Probably by people who are good at making forecasts.

In reality, there should be forecasts supported by data from all the interested parties, then voters will have the opportunity to take a balanced view.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
I agree it will never occur, but that is definitely not stopping them from trying very hard. The harder they push against this basic truth the worse the eventual fallout will be.

I definitely wouldn't agree that the EU is an effective way of suppressing German power.

You've mentioned this about data a few times, but really what are you expecting? There is no formula, model or data that can accurately predict the future. There are too many variables and too many things which would impact it which can't possibly be predicted.

To take just one example, how different would the equation be if oil went back to $100 a barrel a year after we left? Or down to $20?

How about if there was another financial crisis in the far east? Or a US raise interest rates and the dollar rises?

Then there's the impact that our exit will have on the EU itself - what if Denmark or Sweden or anywhere else decide to leave too? Will Brussels do as some think and spitefully block trade between Britain and the EU.

All of these things and dozens, probably hundreds or even thousands more will have a different impact depending on our trading arrangements with the remainder of the EU, which at this stage haven't even been debated. I suppose it would be logical to do this after rejecting EU membership in a referendum, but it's hard to make a case to do that without some idea where we're going first.

What data are you hoping to see?
There is an element of crystal ball gazing, which seems to scare many people. I wouldn't make a decision to purchase white goods without some sort of cost/benefit analysis, so to expected to make a rational decision re: membership of the EU without data and a cost/benefit analysis is a nonsense.

">
but it's hard to make a case to do that without some idea where we're going first.
<"

Which is why the "outers" need to define the options, three maximum. That doesn't appear to be happening

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
Ideally there ought to be a completely objective analysis based on forecasts. But that isn't, possibly even cannot, happen because the forecasts themselves are subject to opinion and speculation.

So if the "outers" are required to make predictions, which they should imo, then so should the "inners" so that their predictions and assumptions can be interrogated. But so far there's nothing from them either.

As before the analyses done so far show maybe some gain, maybe some loss. Risks on both sides. Let's say that's the objective result, so a cba doesn't drop in favour of either side economically.

Where do you go next to base a decision?

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
But this isn't buying white goods for a private household, which is a fundamentally simple transaction with very limited and predictable consequences, and a small number of variables. It's a vast, complex question filled with totally unknowable elements.

But here you go:

Open Europe produced this which gives a range of -2.2% to +1.6 on GDP by 2030.

An IEA paper predicted an increase of 1.3bn a year.

While zee Germans think it could wipe 14% off our GDP.

I realised far too late into an economics degree that while reports like this use lots of accepted and advanced statistical methods they are still based on wildly unreliable assumptions, incredibly scant data and lots guesswork about what will happen in future. "Rubbish in rubbish out." Of course that's before you add in the bias of the peope publishing the report, and if like most people you don't really want to sift through a report full of complicated statistical analyses, whoever is reporting it.

What is more, we'll never even know which one was correct because there is no parallel universe in which we took the other path. At least not one we can access.

It sounds quite obvious, but it's something that people do struggle with. The reality is that we don't know. We can't predict GDP from one quarter to the next with any accuracy, and GDP is at best a very rough guide to general prosperity or the underlying strength of the economy.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
Don't disagree with a word of that tbh. The sentiment I was trying to get across is that I get frustrated with the continual line from the "inners" that it's solely for the "outers" to make the case and do the analysis. The whole thing is so complicated, back to the known unknowns and unknown unknowns malarkey, that it is for both sides to make their case.

Strikes me that lack of "inners" case presentation could mean there isn't much of a concrete case other than a Jim Davidson line of "too rrriskay" with the strong implication that IN has no attached risks or exposure.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
The reply was more directed towards V8 who seems to be persisting with the idea that you can come up with some sort of a balance sheet of accurately forecast costs and benefits like he would for buying a new dishwasher. It's a fantasy, which makes people putty in the hands of confident sounding self-appointed experts.

In fairness, the "inners" are in the position of arguing for the status quo. It would be a fairly radical chance, and it is up to the "outers" to make our case. The difficulty is that there isn't any one coherent vision for Britain outside the EU, hence there is nothing to argue for.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
The reply was more directed towards V8 who seems to be persisting with the idea that you can come up with some sort of a balance sheet of accurately forecast costs and benefits like he would for buying a new dishwasher. It's a fantasy, which makes people putty in the hands of confident sounding self-appointed experts.

In fairness, the "inners" are in the position of arguing for the status quo. It would be a fairly radical chance, and it is up to the "outers" to make our case. The difficulty is that there isn't any one coherent vision for Britain outside the EU, hence there is nothing to argue for.
Fair enough though I'll remind folks that even Tony Blair said that once every generation the case for the EU needs to be made.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
Denmark tells Germany it's going to impose border controls at the DK - DE land borders.



https://uk.news.yahoo.com/denmark-tells-germany-im...

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
But this isn't buying white goods for a private household, which is a fundamentally simple transaction with very limited and predictable consequences, and a small number of variables. It's a vast, complex question filled with totally unknowable elements.

But here you go:

Open Europe produced this which gives a range of -2.2% to +1.6 on GDP by 2030.

An IEA paper predicted an increase of 1.3bn a year.

While zee Germans think it could wipe 14% off our GDP.

I realised far too late into an economics degree that while reports like this use lots of accepted and advanced statistical methods they are still based on wildly unreliable assumptions, incredibly scant data and lots guesswork about what will happen in future. "Rubbish in rubbish out." Of course that's before you add in the bias of the peope publishing the report, and if like most people you don't really want to sift through a report full of complicated statistical analyses, whoever is reporting it.

What is more, we'll never even know which one was correct because there is no parallel universe in which we took the other path. At least not one we can access.

It sounds quite obvious, but it's something that people do struggle with. The reality is that we don't know. We can't predict GDP from one quarter to the next with any accuracy, and GDP is at best a very rough guide to general prosperity or the underlying strength of the economy.
If no reasonably accurate cost/benefit analysis is available then the referendum should not occur, it's too important to get wrong. It's a bizarre situation where a cost/benefit analysis can be undertaken for purchasing something as inconsequential as white goods, yet it's not something you would consider even attempting for this crucial issue.

You seem to be quite negative and defeatist about the ability to forecast. There may well be elements with unknown factors, hence reference to crystal ball gazing; broad brush will be fine. Bank of England are secretly looking at costs, CBI must be doing something similar.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
If no reasonably accurate cost/benefit analysis is available then the referendum should not occur, it's too important to get wrong. It's a bizarre situation where a cost/benefit analysis can be undertaken for purchasing something as inconsequential as white goods, yet it's not something you would consider even attempting for this crucial issue.

You seem to be quite negative and defeatist about the ability to forecast. There may well be elements with unknown factors, hence reference to crystal ball gazing; broad brush will be fine. Bank of England are secretly looking at costs, CBI must be doing something similar.
The problem with broad brush is that it can be stroked multiple ways. Which you don't want, so really broad brush won't do.

You want something that gives you a black and white answer on the financials. There isn't one. Even if there was, there would still be winners and losers within our borders depending on their own circumstances. So a "yes" for you is highly likely to be a "no" for someone else.

IMO the trade side of life (and to a greater extent the fiscal side as a result) will sort itself out. The EU sells more to us than vice versa. ie at present they need our trade more than we need theirs. Especially when you consider the basket case finances they either have (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal...France) or are propping up (Germany). The biggest risk to our GDP? Our own workforce becoming lazier.

So that then leaves things like mobility (people worked abroad before all this bullst and will still be able to) and then all the lovely benefit that comes with loss of sovereign control of borders and elected political due process.

Those last two bits, IMO, are becoming exponentially important. To the point where if you could get a black and white answer on the fiscals I'd take a negative impact to avoid those things. Talk of the EU raising an army etc worries the st out me. And lack of direct electoral control equally. The EU has become an monster and it needs stopping. Revert back to a common market and fine. Anything more than that is unnecessary and damaging.

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
If no reasonably accurate cost/benefit analysis is available then the referendum should not occur, it's too important to get wrong. It's a bizarre situation where a cost/benefit analysis can be undertaken for purchasing something as inconsequential as white goods, yet it's not something you would consider even attempting for this crucial issue.

You seem to be quite negative and defeatist about the ability to forecast. There may well be elements with unknown factors, hence reference to crystal ball gazing; broad brush will be fine. Bank of England are secretly looking at costs, CBI must be doing something similar.
All the analyses so far show that financial cost/benefit side of things is pretty much a non-issue in the short term. So a decision for in or out does not depend on that. Its nothing like choosing a white good purchase.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
It isn't really a bizarre situation at all V8. Buying white goods is a relatively simple thing with a limited range of choices and a few very specific possible outcomes. Taking the UK out of the EU is not.

Look at the predictions on share prices over a year. Just a single share price, with all the information available on them and all the dozens of other like shares to compare with. Highly paid and experienced analysts routinely get their predictions wildly wrong, the same stock will have a broad range of predictions, and most likely none of them will be a very good representation of what actually happened. Some will get in the right region, but quite often last years' heroes flop.

Does that mean it's never worth investing in the stock market?

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
The problem with broad brush is that it can be stroked multiple ways. Which you don't want, so really broad brush won't do.

You want something that gives you a black and white answer on the financials. There isn't one. Even if there was, there would still be winners and losers within our borders depending on their own circumstances. So a "yes" for you is highly likely to be a "no" for someone else.

IMO the trade side of life (and to a greater extent the fiscal side as a result) will sort itself out. The EU sells more to us than vice versa. ie at present they need our trade more than we need theirs. Especially when you consider the basket case finances they either have (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal...France) or are propping up (Germany). The biggest risk to our GDP? Our own workforce becoming lazier.

So that then leaves things like mobility (people worked abroad before all this bullst and will still be able to) and then all the lovely benefit that comes with loss of sovereign control of borders and elected political due process.

Those last two bits, IMO, are becoming exponentially important. To the point where if you could get a black and white answer on the fiscals I'd take a negative impact to avoid those things. Talk of the EU raising an army etc worries the st out me. And lack of direct electoral control equally. The EU has become an monster and it needs stopping. Revert back to a common market and fine. Anything more than that is unnecessary and damaging.
Stroke a brush? Why would you do that? Broad brush = ignore details.

EU army? Europe is a long way from that.

You might be right re: Common Market vs EU, perhaps that should be the referendum choice.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
s2art said:
All the analyses so far show that financial cost/benefit side of things is pretty much a non-issue in the short term. So a decision for in or out does not depend on that. Its nothing like choosing a white good purchase.
Short term shouldn't be the priority. Please post links to ALL the analyses. The decision making process will certainly be nothing like buying white goods if we don't know the cost.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
It isn't really a bizarre situation at all V8. Buying white goods is a relatively simple thing with a limited range of choices and a few very specific possible outcomes. Taking the UK out of the EU is not.

Look at the predictions on share prices over a year. Just a single share price, with all the information available on them and all the dozens of other like shares to compare with. Highly paid and experienced analysts routinely get their predictions wildly wrong, the same stock will have a broad range of predictions, and most likely none of them will be a very good representation of what actually happened. Some will get in the right region, but quite often last years' heroes flop.

Does that mean it's never worth investing in the stock market?
Even more reason to carry out a cost/benefit analysis. If the dishwasher goes wrong because it's a poor design then buy another (different) design. Make the wrong decision re: continued membership of the EU and it will be long time before we can re-visit that decision.

Most stock market investment will include an element of cost/benefit analysis. In fact, most stock market decisions are based purely on cost/benefit. Stock market prices are driven primarily by the market, not by true value, thus suffering the vagaries of the market place. GDP per head is not primarily driven by stock market value.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
You might be right re: Common Market vs EU, perhaps that should be the referendum choice.
No such choice has ever really been on offer. The 1957 Treaty of Rome, which we signed up to in 1973 is about political union.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED