The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
AJS- said:
I think all voting is always based on guessing the future as there are far too many variables to be really known.
That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
Solid principles? Looks like guesswork to me.That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
AJS- said:
It isn't a multiple choice exam.
The data and the models simply don't exist. They can not predict GDP, an abstract metric whose measurement they also control, from one quarter to the next.
The so called "social sciences" are modern day soothsaying in this regard. It is a massively complex question with no reliable data, and even where there is it provides no insight into what will happen due to things entirely beyond our control.
Principles matter because that governs how you respond to events. My observation is that democratic countries with free market economies respond a lot better than centralised bureaucracies with directed economies.
If you are looking for some even vaguely accurate balance sheet detailing even a significant number of the opportunities and pitfalls inherent to either of the possible outcomes you are begging to be take for a fool by charlatans on both sides who will happily spoon feed you the information they think you need to make their decision.
No-one in their right mind would seek to dismantle a commercial enterprise without a cost/benefit analysis, do you not think we should try and do something similar before making substantial changes in our relationship with Europe? There will be an element of crystal ball gazing, there should also be an element of accurate forecasting.The data and the models simply don't exist. They can not predict GDP, an abstract metric whose measurement they also control, from one quarter to the next.
The so called "social sciences" are modern day soothsaying in this regard. It is a massively complex question with no reliable data, and even where there is it provides no insight into what will happen due to things entirely beyond our control.
Principles matter because that governs how you respond to events. My observation is that democratic countries with free market economies respond a lot better than centralised bureaucracies with directed economies.
If you are looking for some even vaguely accurate balance sheet detailing even a significant number of the opportunities and pitfalls inherent to either of the possible outcomes you are begging to be take for a fool by charlatans on both sides who will happily spoon feed you the information they think you need to make their decision.
How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
s2art said:
V8 Fettler said:
AJS- said:
I think all voting is always based on guessing the future as there are far too many variables to be really known.
That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
Solid principles? Looks like guesswork to me.That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
V8 Fettler said:
No-one in their right mind would seek to dismantle a commercial enterprise without a cost/benefit analysis, do you not think we should try and do something similar before making substantial changes in our relationship with Europe? There will be an element of crystal ball gazing, there should also be an element of accurate forecasting.
How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
Perhaps we could dust off the one used for going into Europe as a start...How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
V8 Fettler said:
s2art said:
V8 Fettler said:
AJS- said:
I think all voting is always based on guessing the future as there are far too many variables to be really known.
That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
Solid principles? Looks like guesswork to me.That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
And what is the financial cost of staying in? The best analyses say we would be better off out, even without a FTA. Given that Germany will beat a path to our door for free trade, we will certainly be better off out. You want there to be no 'unknowns', never happen. All you can do is make the best estimates you can, based upon the available evidence and the history of similar circumstances. I guess most of the ex-Empire ended up better off after independence, so there is a reasonable precedent. Against that Ireland did worse until they joined the EEC. But the UK isnt anything like Ireland (as was).
V8 Fettler said:
No-one in their right mind would seek to dismantle a commercial enterprise without a cost/benefit analysis, do you not think we should try and do something similar before making substantial changes in our relationship with Europe? There will be an element of crystal ball gazing, there should also be an element of accurate forecasting.
How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
Assuming we are in our right mind as a nation (we went into the EU, and stay in it, based on a lot of guesswork and ideologically inspired optimism) then it's still a mistake to see it as a commercial enterprise. It is entirely a political project, and free trade within the union is just a side issue. As pointed out elsewhere there are other ways we could trade with EU member states without being part of a political union. How exit would change trading arrangements is entirely dependent on what deal we struck afterwards. I believe Lisbon provides a 2 year window to renegotiate a unique deal.How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
If you take the position that the EU is so spiteful and irrational as to attempt to significantly hinder the massive, and highly mutually beneficial trade between Britain and the rest of the European Union to make a political point or display of it's disapproval of our leaving then it really begs the question what life will be like inside such an organisation.
There's no switch between free market democracy and centralised planned bureaucracy. Germany, like all modern states has elements of both. The direction of the European Union appears to be very much one way in favour of a large bureaucratic and corporatist state.
FWIW I think Germany, like every single member of the European Union but perhaps more so, would be better off if they abandoned this misguided political project and operated as independent democracies trading freely.
Murph7355 said:
V8 Fettler said:
No-one in their right mind would seek to dismantle a commercial enterprise without a cost/benefit analysis, do you not think we should try and do something similar before making substantial changes in our relationship with Europe? There will be an element of crystal ball gazing, there should also be an element of accurate forecasting.
How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
Perhaps we could dust off the one used for going into Europe as a start...How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
s2art said:
V8 Fettler said:
s2art said:
V8 Fettler said:
AJS- said:
I think all voting is always based on guessing the future as there are far too many variables to be really known.
That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
Solid principles? Looks like guesswork to me.That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
And what is the financial cost of staying in? The best analyses say we would be better off out, even without a FTA. Given that Germany will beat a path to our door for free trade, we will certainly be better off out. You want there to be no 'unknowns', never happen. All you can do is make the best estimates you can, based upon the available evidence and the history of similar circumstances. I guess most of the ex-Empire ended up better off after independence, so there is a reasonable precedent. Against that Ireland did worse until they joined the EEC. But the UK isnt anything like Ireland (as was).
Where are the "best analyses"? Haven't I referred to an element of crystal ball gazing?
Using the performance of the economies of ex-British Empire countries since 1945 is shaky ground for leaving the EU. The economy of the British Empire was wrecked by WW1 and WW2, highly unlikely that the economies of the various countries would deteriorate further irrespective of the continued existence of the British Empire.
AJS- said:
V8 Fettler said:
No-one in their right mind would seek to dismantle a commercial enterprise without a cost/benefit analysis, do you not think we should try and do something similar before making substantial changes in our relationship with Europe? There will be an element of crystal ball gazing, there should also be an element of accurate forecasting.
How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
Assuming we are in our right mind as a nation (we went into the EU, and stay in it, based on a lot of guesswork and ideologically inspired optimism) then it's still a mistake to see it as a commercial enterprise. It is entirely a political project, and free trade within the union is just a side issue. As pointed out elsewhere there are other ways we could trade with EU member states without being part of a political union. How exit would change trading arrangements is entirely dependent on what deal we struck afterwards. I believe Lisbon provides a 2 year window to renegotiate a unique deal.How do you view Germany? Democratic with a free market economy? Or a centralised bureaucracy with a directed economy?
If you take the position that the EU is so spiteful and irrational as to attempt to significantly hinder the massive, and highly mutually beneficial trade between Britain and the rest of the European Union to make a political point or display of it's disapproval of our leaving then it really begs the question what life will be like inside such an organisation.
There's no switch between free market democracy and centralised planned bureaucracy. Germany, like all modern states has elements of both. The direction of the European Union appears to be very much one way in favour of a large bureaucratic and corporatist state.
FWIW I think Germany, like every single member of the European Union but perhaps more so, would be better off if they abandoned this misguided political project and operated as independent democracies trading freely.
There clearly is a political element, but the primary effect of the EU is to remove barriers to free trade. It appears that there are shades of "voting out", ranging from "run away and don't look back" to "EU lite". Will all this be clarified before the referendum, or will the referendum follow the Scots shambolic example where little attention was paid to the important details?
I wouldn't want a Germany that functions outside of the influence of the rest of Europe.
Removing barriers to free trade is inherently simple. You take away the tariffs and quotas which restrict trade, and you let people get on with it. There might need to be some harmonisation of standards as you have under the WTO etc, but nothing that requires a flag, a parliament, a legal system, a foreign policy or an anthem. This is not a "political element." It's a country. Plain and simple. The fact that our politicians continue to deny this does not make it less so in any single way.
Yes, the campaign so far appears to be following the form of the Scottish referendum, as I imagine it was intended to do - a shambolic Out campaign who have no cohesive idea of what they are campaigning for or whether it is actually achievable. Set against a rather slick, well-funded In campaign who have the state and large chunks of the media on their side, and can make open-ended promises of reform in future. It's also something like the Soviet referendum of 1991 in this regard, where the people of the USSR voted quite decisively in favour of preserving the union in some form.
Yes, the campaign so far appears to be following the form of the Scottish referendum, as I imagine it was intended to do - a shambolic Out campaign who have no cohesive idea of what they are campaigning for or whether it is actually achievable. Set against a rather slick, well-funded In campaign who have the state and large chunks of the media on their side, and can make open-ended promises of reform in future. It's also something like the Soviet referendum of 1991 in this regard, where the people of the USSR voted quite decisively in favour of preserving the union in some form.
AJS- said:
Removing barriers to free trade is inherently simple. You take away the tariffs and quotas which restrict trade, and you let people get on with it. There might need to be some harmonisation of standards as you have under the WTO etc, but nothing that requires a flag, a parliament, a legal system, a foreign policy or an anthem. This is not a "political element." It's a country. Plain and simple. The fact that our politicians continue to deny this does not make it less so in any single way.
Yes, the campaign so far appears to be following the form of the Scottish referendum, as I imagine it was intended to do - a shambolic Out campaign who have no cohesive idea of what they are campaigning for or whether it is actually achievable. Set against a rather slick, well-funded In campaign who have the state and large chunks of the media on their side, and can make open-ended promises of reform in future. It's also something like the Soviet referendum of 1991 in this regard, where the people of the USSR voted quite decisively in favour of preserving the union in some form.
The EU is not a country.Yes, the campaign so far appears to be following the form of the Scottish referendum, as I imagine it was intended to do - a shambolic Out campaign who have no cohesive idea of what they are campaigning for or whether it is actually achievable. Set against a rather slick, well-funded In campaign who have the state and large chunks of the media on their side, and can make open-ended promises of reform in future. It's also something like the Soviet referendum of 1991 in this regard, where the people of the USSR voted quite decisively in favour of preserving the union in some form.
Why is the "vote out" campaign shambolic? How much money is behind it? There is no clear leadership, Farage being the obvious choice. "Vote out" needs to define the winnable issues and fight on these. The current nebulous approach is flawed.
zygalski said:
I actually agree.
It's a shame that nobody seems to be able to mount a coherent campaign giving solid reasons for the UK to leave the EU. A shame, but hardly surprising. Are there no wealthy backers to the OUT campaign, or do they simply lack influence?
Firstly that assumes that people are jelly waiting to be moulded by Slick Willy. Minds are already made up, there's been enough evidence around us for years, what people don't need or want is spin, whoever backs it.It's a shame that nobody seems to be able to mount a coherent campaign giving solid reasons for the UK to leave the EU. A shame, but hardly surprising. Are there no wealthy backers to the OUT campaign, or do they simply lack influence?
There are some wealthy backers, but it is a bit more complex than that.
The biggest difficulty is that lack of any cohesive vision of what Britain outside the EU would actually look like. On the one have you have Farage talking about deals with China and the commonwealth, on the other hand, you have Richard North's "flexcit" which would see us stay within the EEA as a temporary measure.
Also, while it's easy to dismiss it as a "whinge" the media do seem to relish focussing on the splits and divisions in the Out campaign rather than the arguments, and to give an undue level of credence to Cameron's supposed reforms and negotiations, which as far as I can tell amount to fiddling around with welfare entitlements, and a sort of hyper-ASBO barring convicted criminals from the UK for a period of time.
IMO UKIP should have focused far less on the referendum and far more on the actual policies they would implement outside of the European Union. Agriculture and Fisheries would be the easy ones. Now they have a referendum and predictably have no idea how to win it, or even what they are arguing for. Plus they can't actually implement these policies even if they do win the referendum because we will still have a Conservative government whose leadership still believe we should be members of the EU. It would then be up to them, not UKIP to negotiate the mechanics of our exit.
If the referendum is to be held in autumn 2016, a little more than a year away, they really need to get cracking.
If I was in any sort of position to influence it then I would be looking for a secessionist Tory who could potentially lead these negotiations, as a key player in the Out campaign.
The biggest difficulty is that lack of any cohesive vision of what Britain outside the EU would actually look like. On the one have you have Farage talking about deals with China and the commonwealth, on the other hand, you have Richard North's "flexcit" which would see us stay within the EEA as a temporary measure.
Also, while it's easy to dismiss it as a "whinge" the media do seem to relish focussing on the splits and divisions in the Out campaign rather than the arguments, and to give an undue level of credence to Cameron's supposed reforms and negotiations, which as far as I can tell amount to fiddling around with welfare entitlements, and a sort of hyper-ASBO barring convicted criminals from the UK for a period of time.
IMO UKIP should have focused far less on the referendum and far more on the actual policies they would implement outside of the European Union. Agriculture and Fisheries would be the easy ones. Now they have a referendum and predictably have no idea how to win it, or even what they are arguing for. Plus they can't actually implement these policies even if they do win the referendum because we will still have a Conservative government whose leadership still believe we should be members of the EU. It would then be up to them, not UKIP to negotiate the mechanics of our exit.
If the referendum is to be held in autumn 2016, a little more than a year away, they really need to get cracking.
If I was in any sort of position to influence it then I would be looking for a secessionist Tory who could potentially lead these negotiations, as a key player in the Out campaign.
V8
What is it then? It's not a trading arrangement. It has a defined territory, a flag, an anthem, a president, a parliament, a foreign policy. What defines a country?
As outlined in my reply to zygalski, I think they backed themselves into a corner by putting all their efforts into campaigning for a referendum, and very profitably criticising EU policies and their results without advancing a consistent alternative. This brought together a large group of people who were sceptical of the EU but didn't give them a binding vision of what we would do differently outside it.
turbobloke
It seems that they did at least count the No votes and allowed some debate on the matter. The fairly innocuous proposition they actually voted on was:
Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?
Set against the chaotic collapse of the communist and aligned states of Eastern Europe a population fed and watered by Pravda were never going to reject that. 77/22 at the final count. It's something I'm trying to read up on at the moment. Quite interesting.
What is it then? It's not a trading arrangement. It has a defined territory, a flag, an anthem, a president, a parliament, a foreign policy. What defines a country?
As outlined in my reply to zygalski, I think they backed themselves into a corner by putting all their efforts into campaigning for a referendum, and very profitably criticising EU policies and their results without advancing a consistent alternative. This brought together a large group of people who were sceptical of the EU but didn't give them a binding vision of what we would do differently outside it.
turbobloke
It seems that they did at least count the No votes and allowed some debate on the matter. The fairly innocuous proposition they actually voted on was:
Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?
Set against the chaotic collapse of the communist and aligned states of Eastern Europe a population fed and watered by Pravda were never going to reject that. 77/22 at the final count. It's something I'm trying to read up on at the moment. Quite interesting.
AJS- said:
V8
What is it then? It's not a trading arrangement. It has a defined territory, a flag, an anthem, a president, a parliament, a foreign policy. What defines a country?
As outlined in my reply to zygalski, I think they backed themselves into a corner by putting all their efforts into campaigning for a referendum, and very profitably criticising EU policies and their results without advancing a consistent alternative. This brought together a large group of people who were sceptical of the EU but didn't give them a binding vision of what we would do differently outside it.
The EU doesn't have a national identity, therefore it is not a nation, therefore it is not a country. It is a grouping of countries with common and disparate interests.What is it then? It's not a trading arrangement. It has a defined territory, a flag, an anthem, a president, a parliament, a foreign policy. What defines a country?
As outlined in my reply to zygalski, I think they backed themselves into a corner by putting all their efforts into campaigning for a referendum, and very profitably criticising EU policies and their results without advancing a consistent alternative. This brought together a large group of people who were sceptical of the EU but didn't give them a binding vision of what we would do differently outside it.
AJS- said:
What are a flag and an anthem if not part of a national identity?
I agree it doesn't actually have one, and that's one of the biggest problems with it, but it desperately wants one and is busily engaged in trying to build one.
In my experience, many inhabitants of Europe treat the EU flag and anthem as a joke. Very different to how many nationalities treat their own flags and anthems.I agree it doesn't actually have one, and that's one of the biggest problems with it, but it desperately wants one and is busily engaged in trying to build one.
Do you mix socially with many Europeans? In my experience: for many nationalities (my generation and older), there is still a widespread dislike and distrust of the Germans as a people, but not on an individual basis. It's fading with time. Additionally - in my experience - for the Germans of my generation and older there is still a widespread dislike and distrust of Eastern Europeans (particularly the Slavs) as a people but not on an individual basis; again, this is fading with time.
The reality of a United Europe is a long way off.
But it comes back to my point about what are countries and why do they exist? The human nature to live in groups for mutual comfort, aid and protection. Recycle that discussion.
Let's look at the thing for which Cameron is supposedlu campaigning, namely a red card system so that a group of like minded nations can block or refuse to implement an EU law or regulation to which they object. That presupposes that the EU regulations are superior to the national laws and that the EU administration is also dominant and therefore the member nation are simply subsidiary minor administrations, bit like a county council.
Play with semantics all you like to say the EU is not a country, technically it isn't, yet, but is trying to act in that role. It's too big and the member states far too disparate in many ways for it to succeed in the long term. It needs to be brought to heel. To do so, at least to my satisfaction, would remove it so far from where things are today in order to get my vote for in that would effectively take it back to nothing more than a trading bloc.
Let's look at the thing for which Cameron is supposedlu campaigning, namely a red card system so that a group of like minded nations can block or refuse to implement an EU law or regulation to which they object. That presupposes that the EU regulations are superior to the national laws and that the EU administration is also dominant and therefore the member nation are simply subsidiary minor administrations, bit like a county council.
Play with semantics all you like to say the EU is not a country, technically it isn't, yet, but is trying to act in that role. It's too big and the member states far too disparate in many ways for it to succeed in the long term. It needs to be brought to heel. To do so, at least to my satisfaction, would remove it so far from where things are today in order to get my vote for in that would effectively take it back to nothing more than a trading bloc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff