Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Yeekim]

I disagree, but it's not a completely nonsensical point of view

I don't get what you disagree with, I'm just trying to explain what I meant when I used certain terms. You may offer better terms.

this is wrong, and I don't understand what you base this claim on

for example, regulations are made by government
they can very easily not do this

Allow me to bring a wee example.

When Pacioli wrote first public treatise about double-entry bookkeeping, it had ~two dozen pages. Nothing on reporting.
Today, your shareholders or investors may want to know how your business is doing, so they'll want reports. Now, international financial reporting standards (IFRS) have couple thousand pages and those aren't "government regulations". And once the report is done, your business partners/investors/creditors will want them to be audited, so you can throw auditing standards (ISA) on top of that.

This reflects business and finance having grown more complex, not government writing regulations "just because", even though I understand this is a popular belief.

 

[Mise]

I don't see how that's an argument for a "complex" society

Precisely my point - the number of people I interact with has very little bearing on the complexity of a society. I mean, I'm really not sure why it's necessary for me to interact with people from Finland or Spain, before we can claim that society is complex or that European nations are intertwined to a much greater extent than 100 years ago. It's a very silly argument that you're making.

 

[Borachio]

So you would get rid of a municipal government of e.g. London and split it into communes to solve all issues (including transport, sewage, garbage disposal etc) each for themselves?

In fact, according to this guy I saw tonight on TV talking about the "swarming" nature of human beings viewed collectively, this may not be such a bad idea. A bit radical, though.

 

[Akka]

oh yea, listening to what the people want, how deplorable

Yeah, populism is totally an intelligent and constructive manner of running politics.
I mean, using ignorance, bias, preconception and scapegoat to lead people where you want is really a healthy and positive democratic method.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's easy to dismiss people you don't like as just fooling the electorate - the argument is as old as democracy - but much less easy to prove, I think, that people are voting based on demonstrably false beliefs. Trump isn't fooling millions of liberal people with his rhetoric about banning Muslims and building walls; these people genuinely want the walls built and the Muslims banned, and democracy is about persuading them that this is a bad idea, not telling them that they're stupid.

 

[Borachio]

There again, there's many a populist (and Trump maybe one; I couldn't possibly say for sure) who merely cynically panders to the most widespread fears of a population.

With the idea of simply achieving power by any means.

 

[Flying Pig]

There again, there's many a populist (and Trump maybe one) who merely cynically panders to the most widespread fears of a population.

With the idea of simply achieving power by any means.

To an extent, that's all politics: anybody running for office knows that you can't do much good with principles but no power. The reason Jeremy Corbyn has been so severely criticised for making a fight out of everything he finds important (see: singing the national anthem) is that he could swallow those, be elected, and get some of his principles into action, rather than fighting for them, losing constantly, and allowing policy to be dictated by those who share none of them.

 

[Borachio]

I agree. That's the trouble with seeking power: you have to sell your soul to the devil.

(More or less.)

That's also probably why you should never give power to someone who wants it.

And why I'll be voting to leave the EU. That way Farage will be out of one lucrative job (in the EU). And hopefully Cameron (in the UK) as well.

 

[innonimatu]

Reduced travel time makes everything more complex. You're not only competing with your own countrymen, but with the whole world. It makes governing more complex. It makes running a business more complex.

That, specifically, is a political option. Just because something can be does not mean that it must be.

Which aspect of society is simpler than it was 100 years ago ?

Do you really want to go down that road? We could have a whole thread arguing about it.

Take the case of international politics and aall its implocations (legislative, economic, etc) in society: we now have many countries. Instead of a few big empires. Does that make the world more simple or more complex? Does that make societies (which had opportunity to differentiate, following diffrent policies and therefore different paths) more simple or more complex?

Have you not noticed that harmonization and standardization are the cornerstones of the case for the EU? The whole EU project was about a common market, common regulations, common policies... it was, and is, an attempt at creating a simpler, more manageable society (from the point of view of those holding solcial power).
Was this a reaction against the increased fragmentation and complexity of European societies? But wasn't the end of the division of Europe in two opposed blocks itself a step into fragmentation and complexity, hailed as desirable liberation? Or was Europe's political landscape better in 1981 than in 1991? Going back a few more years, was it better in 1914 or in 1925? Was the [/I]simpler (in terms of legislation, unity of education, freedom of movement, etc) austro-hungarian empire better than the separate countries it split into?
And (I guess this question is for Yeekim) if the EU is a reaction against increased complexity, is it not trying to reverse the tide of history? Of technolocal and social evolution?

Or might the EU be just a mechanism for coping with complexity? But It seems that the mechanism has become the construction of yet another attempt at an european empire. One would expect people to learn something from history, namely the futility of trying to build those to last...

When Pacioli wrote first public treatise about double-entry bookkeeping, it had ~two dozen pages. Nothing on reporting.
Today, your shareholders or investors may want to know how your business is doing, so they'll want reports. Now, international financial reporting standards (IFRS) have couple thousand pages and those aren't "government regulations". And once the report is done, your business partners/investors/creditors will want them to be audited, so you can throw auditing standards (ISA) on top of that.

This reflects business and finance having grown more complex, not government writing regulations "just because", even though I understand this is a popular belief.

I could make a case that much of that complexity is just "bureaucracy to feed the bureaucracy". Or worse, bureaucracy to hide what is going on. Make things too complex and only the initiated will understand them.
We all saw what happened in finance when the banks started selling bets under different names. Guess what, they're busy doing it again on a grand scale... and the public at large is not noticing it. The regulations have become so hard to understand that they now enable the players in that game to escape public scrutiny.

Reporting is good. So much reporting that no one pays attention to it - because time and attention is finite - is bad. It is as good as having no information.

For an EU example, this is doing this with the negotiation of increasingly opaque and byzantine international treaties without allowing public discussion, because the stuff is supposed to be a matter for technocrats. Technocracy is the way democracies die now. And everyone who dares challenge the "experts" and actually manages to be noticed must be a "populist".

 

[innonimatu]

I'm not convinced, you can rephrase any statement of 'the EU offers us this benefit' as 'we'll lose this if we leave the EU', but the two are meaningfully the same. Given that the option is between no-change and change, it's not surprising to see the no-change side phrasing things in the second way.

But what benefit exactly will the UK lose by leaving the EU?

Free trade? Unthinkable! The continental countries are desperate for markets and the UK is a net importer.
Freedom to travel? Schengen is already collapsing, and the UK has already chosen to remain apart from that.
Military influence? No way, if anything the UK is propping up the rest of the EU. Only France as another competent armed forces.
Diplomatic influence? Again, the EU is a drag. Name me one good diplomatic achievement by the EU (acting as the EU) in the last generation (say, 20 years).

What objective benefit has the EU brought the UK that the UK was not likely to have achieved outside the EU?

The reason Jeremy Corbyn has been so severely criticised for making a fight out of everything he finds important (see: singing the national anthem) is that he could swallow those, be elected, and get some of his principles into action, rather than fighting for them, losing constantly, and allowing policy to be dictated by those who share none of them.

But he didn't swallow his principles. And he still got elected in his party. Against all predictions by the "experts". Who happened to have a vested interest in not allowing this one example of a different way of doing politics to be noticed (it was not their way).

The outcome of that example is still open. That it was made at all is important, It shows that there is an alternative.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I don't get what you disagree with, I'm just trying to explain what I meant when I used certain terms. You may offer better terms.

That the rules for some sort of activity becomes larger and more complex has little impact on the social interactions between and positions of people, and I don't think of that as an increase in "complexity" in society.

Allow me to bring a wee example.

When Pacioli wrote first public treatise about double-entry bookkeeping, it had ~two dozen pages. Nothing on reporting.
Today, your shareholders or investors may want to know how your business is doing, so they'll want reports. Now, international financial reporting standards (IFRS) have couple thousand pages and those aren't "government regulations". And once the report is done, your business partners/investors/creditors will want them to be audited, so you can throw auditing standards (ISA) on top of that.

This reflects business and finance having grown more complex, not government writing regulations "just because", even though I understand this is a popular belief.

oh ffs FINE some regulation is made by government, and some are not. That has no impact on my point.
And I don't buy that business and finance has gotten more complex the last 150 years or so
different, sure, but not more complex
though there certainly is more of it

Precisely my point - the number of people I interact with has very little bearing on the complexity of a society. I mean, I'm really not sure why it's necessary for me to interact with people from Finland or Spain, before we can claim that society is complex or that European nations are intertwined to a much greater extent than 100 years ago. It's a very silly argument that you're making.

then what does have bearing on complexity of society?
And I certainly think has bearing on intertwinedness, at the very least

Yeah, populism is totally an intelligent and constructive manner of running politics.
I mean, using ignorance, bias, preconception and scapegoat to lead people where you want is really a healthy and positive democratic method.

yes, people are lead by such notions
except you, of course

 

[Yeekim]

And I don't buy that business and finance has gotten more complex the last 150 years or so

Then I'm forced to conclude you have precisely zero practical experience or theoretical knowledge of either.
EDIT:
I'll just leave it at that:
http://www.doddfrankupdate.com/DFU/...e-costs-make-up-22-percent-of-comm-65029.aspx

The Federal Reserve and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) released the results of their second National Survey of Community Banks. The survey – featured in the 2015 Community Banking Research and Policy Conference’s third annual “Banking in the 21st Century: Opportunities, Challenges and Perspectives” report – found that compliance costs for community banks represented 22 percent of their net income.

“Respondents to the 2015 survey reported that regulatory compliance accounted for 11 percent of personnel expenses, 16 percent of data processing expenses, 20 percent of legal expenses, 38 percent of accounting and auditing expenses and 48 percent of consulting expenses. To the extent that these percentages are accurate and representative of the community banking industry, they imply a hypothetical compliance cost to community banks, in these areas alone, of $4.5 billion annually,” the report stated.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Care to enlighten me, then?

 

[EnglishEdward]

IIRC The UK joined the EEC (which became the EC which became the EU) in 1972.

I am 60 years old. I can remember being promised that joining the European Economic
Community (EEC) would result in higher growth as UK exports to Europe would surge.


Actually European exports to the UK surged far more.

If we discount GDP prior to 1955 as being unduly impacted
by WW2 and recovery from that, and start comparing from 1955


UK Inflation Adjusted GCP/capita (while not in EEC, EC or EU) rose from

1,668 (First Quarter 1955 AD) to
2,646 (Last Quarter 1972 AD)

in 16.75 years: 58.63% (i.e. *arithmetically 3.50% pa)


UK Inflation Adjusted GDP/capita (while in EEC, EC, EU) rose from to

2,646 (Last Quarter 1972) to
5,698 (Last Quarter 2012)

in 40 years: 115.34% (i.e. arithmetically 2.88% pa)

so if I was to believe the GDP figures, this promise has not been kept.


* I am aware that real economists would apply geometrical/compound arithmetic.

Source Table from:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...2tMLBxVcPKN2D-89lkUk/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=10

 

[Flying Pig]

European exports to the UK are a good thing - that means we're getting those goods at either higher quality, or lower price, than we can make them over here. Remember that the way we work imports and exports into the GDP calculations is a bit backwards: in reality, we work and then send that produce away (exports) because we want things made overseas (imports).

 

[Agent327]

IIRC The UK joined the EEC (which became the EC which became the EU) in 1972.

I am 60 years old. I can remember being promised that joining the European Economic
Community (EEC) would result in higher growth as UK exports to Europe would surge.


Actually European exports to the UK surged far more.

If we discount GDP prior to 1955 as being unduly impacted
by WW2 and recovery from that, and start comparing from 1955


UK Inflation Adjusted GCP/capita (while not in EEC, EC or EU) rose from

1,668 (First Quarter 1955 AD) to
2,646 (Last Quarter 1972 AD)

in 16.75 years: 58.63% (i.e. *arithmetically 3.50% pa)


UK Inflation Adjusted GDP/capita (while in EEC, EC, EU) rose from to

2,646 (Last Quarter 1972) to
5,698 (Last Quarter 2012)

in 40 years: 115.34% (i.e. arithmetically 2.88% pa)

so if I was to believe the GDP figures, this promise has not been kept.


* I am aware that real economists would apply geometrical/compound arithmetic.

... and not say inflation when trying to discuss trade growth. Which your figures show occurred significantly.

I'm not quite following your argument: increased imports from the EU is a bad thing? Or is the fact that EU imports rose even more than exports to the EU a bad thing? Because either way there was significant trade growth. So perhaps trade growth is the bad thing?

 

[EnglishEdward]

... and not say inflation when trying to discuss trade growth. Which your figures show occurred significantly.

I'm not quite following your argument: increased imports from the EU is a bad thing? Or is the fact that EU imports rose even more than exports to the EU a bad thing? Because either way there was significant trade growth. So perhaps trade growth is the bad thing?

I am not against imports. I drive a second hand French car
and enjoy French cheese. But the trade is out of balance.

The enduring trade deficit is a bad thing.

UK annual GDP growth per capita has been significantly
lower since the UK joined the EEC/EC/EU.

i.e. The EEC/EC/EU has not delivered on its promise.

 

[Akka]

I am not against imports. I drive a second hand French car
and enjoy French cheese. But the trade is out of balance.

The enduring trade deficit is a bad thing.

UK annual GDP growth per capita has been significantly
lower since the UK joined the EEC/EC/EU.

i.e. The EEC/EC/EU has not delivered on its promise.

And the fact that the UK entered pretty much exactly when the oil crisis struck (1973) and when Europe was exiting the "glorious thirty" era has nothing to do with it ?

 

[AdrienIer]

Yeah like the rest of Europe has the same growth rate than in 1973

 

[EnglishEdward]

And the fact that the UK entered pretty much exactly when the oil crisis struck (1973) and when Europe was exiting the "glorious thirty" era has nothing to do with it ?

As the UK had north sea oil that should not have had a lasting impact.

Yeah like the rest of Europe has the same growth rate than in 1973

Other countries have done far better than the UK since 1973.

This is not necessarily the fault of the EU.

However the promises have not been met.