|
Post by percy on May 3, 2016 15:25:42 GMT 1
"Red tape" is a confusion often brought into the argument - I have no idea why because it will not change one way or the other and was not a key factor in the projections. The only credible mention is that the laws on financial services will be different - i.e. more customer focused if we stay in the UK, more company focused if we stay in the EU. If we stay in the EU then we predict a small drift of financial services towards Switzerland and Spain which will be negative for UK but as a business we don't care as Spain is cheaper for us and the senior staff like Switzerland.
Personally I think that the result is a foregone conclusion - we will stay in because that is what has been decided for us. Like the Scots in their referendum we will bottle it and then whinge.
I find the whole thing a bit sinister - the last subject like this at work when we were told what to say and think was on the indirect bailout of Goldmans. Even after the flood of films on that subject which give the idea but not the full scale of what has to be the biggest fraud of all time nothing has been done. My wife watched the Steve Carell one (The Big Short) earlier this year and thought it must have been made up. When I told her the even worse events that went on in the bail out for Paulson's buddies at the expense of everyone else she could not believe that there has not been a revolution against Goldmans.
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on May 3, 2016 21:15:56 GMT 1
I'm not sure yet how the "in" camp will spin this one positively - maybe it won't get on the 6 o'clock news ? www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36188936The debate on immigration quickly turns to the out side being called racist or inhumane NIMBIES who want only the right sort to be let in. Our projections show that selective immigration + up to 5x the current "humantitarian" intake have a more positive impact on the economy compared to the current EU open door (which would switch from positive to a negative impact if Turkey comes in); selective immigration alone is significantly more beneficial to the economy than the EU option. You're right - not seen as important as tests for 6 & 7 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by SouthStandShrew on May 3, 2016 21:19:56 GMT 1
Might boycott the whole vote.
Socialequality.org.uk
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 3, 2016 21:31:57 GMT 1
Last week a group of economists published a paper showing that Osbourne's "you'll be worse off if we are out" was absolute rubbish. Their views were far closer to that of my company and the studies I've seen from our banking peers. My wife said it was on "Breakfast" but it had disappeared from the news by the evening unlike Osbourne's projections which were headline news for 2 days straight. I'm beginning to sense a bit of selective reporting here to make sure that "the right side" wins. I saw it on the Beeb website. It was the first group of economists to come out and back leaving. There were 8 of them and I didn't recognise a single one, and it's hardly like it's headline news when small groups of fairly obscure academics back either side. The treasury's slightly ambitious regressions made it as more headline news because (a) it's the treasury and everyone knows who they are and (b) it was the first report to give an accurate (OK wrong word - specific) estimate on the effect of leaving. As far as I read, this group didn't do that - they're proper economists. There were a few estimates chucked in but nothing that had the intention of grabbing the headlines. I think complaining about this strikes me a little bit of the UKIP group suggesting the BBC, despite its overrepresentation of a party with just 1 MP, is all biased against them and it's all a big conspiracy. That said, expecting anywhere one reads news from to be totally impartial is always going to be a touch naive. Last week a group of economists published a paper showing that Osbourne's "you'll be worse off if we are out" was absolute rubbish. Their views were far closer to that of my company and the studies I've seen from our banking peers. My wife said it was on "Breakfast" but it had disappeared from the news by the evening unlike Osbourne's projections which were headline news for 2 days straight. I'm beginning to sense a bit of selective reporting here to make sure that "the right side" wins. I got a bit confused about that report too - seemed to be about 6 senior economists who published the report, but using different data to the treasury report. I got the impression this new report was looking at the business sector more specifically and placed greater emphasis on saving made by not having to follow so much red tape? Is that right or have I got that wrong Bookies moving towards favouring the remain camp this week now put that at about 68% chance as opposed to 59% a few weeks ago Believe it also mentioned immigration and so was perhaps linked to the Gove suggestions. As for the first sentence - they'll all get rucks of data, run hundreds of different spurious regressions and forecasts and pick the one that scrapes within some flexible margin of error that gives them the biggest headline in their favour. Unsurprisingly nobody even agrees with the data they should start off with!
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 3, 2016 21:38:35 GMT 1
I find the whole thing a bit sinister - the last subject like this at work when we were told what to say and think was on the indirect bailout of Goldmans. Even after the flood of films on that subject which give the idea but not the full scale of what has to be the biggest fraud of all time nothing has been done. My wife watched the Steve Carell one (The Big Short) earlier this year and thought it must have been made up. When I told her the even worse events that went on in the bail out for Paulson's buddies at the expense of everyone else she could not believe that there has not been a revolution against Goldmans. Now rambling off topic, but the stuff that went on in the lead up to the crash in America, particularly, was utterly deplorable. Studied it as part of a module earlier this year and it's just ridiculous what people were allowed to get away with. Think the ratings agencies were the ones I thought the least of ultimately, they exist for one thing and one thing only - and they lied about that and made billions from it. Inside Job, with Matt Damon somehow involved, is another good documentary for anyone interested in this sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on May 3, 2016 21:44:39 GMT 1
Lenny - watch one of the credit crisis films and you will get a sense of the real pressure that you feel not to speak out against what is going on. I'm lucky to be at one of the big boys in the city and I've seen the projections of the top banks - they are more aligned with these economists that you have never heard of. Our public position is stay in though and we are all putting pressure on any public comment about the vote.
There is a clear push from the institutions to get over this quickly and move on - just like the bail out. If you think there was no conspiracy during the bail out then you are wrong; here I don't know, but there is a hell of a lot of self interest at work you can be sure.
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 3, 2016 22:01:32 GMT 1
I imagine that most people would not begin to believe what went on during the bail out - as I said above; my wife thought it was made up when she saw "The Big Short" which didn't even go as far as it could.
The bail out showed me first hand that Big Brother really does exist and how easy it is for the institutions to manipulate both the press and politicians - an organised conspiracy is not needed where there is an alignment of self interest.
I have a PhD in economics and Lenny has probably never heard of me either - so what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 3, 2016 22:06:45 GMT 1
The debate hasn't caused me to have a moment's reflection on the way I am going to vote (leave) because the protagonists on both sides are so definite in their own minds about the one thing I absolutely know they are not experts in: the future. This applies particularly to economists.
I am much more interested in processes and specifically those processes being democratised. I think leaving the EU is one necessary step to doing this because the EU allows politicians and civil servants in other countries who we never voted for making laws that apply to us.
This is what it boils down to for me.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 3, 2016 23:26:39 GMT 1
I imagine that most people would not begin to believe what went on during the bail out - as I said above; my wife thought it was made up when she saw "The Big Short" which didn't even go as far as it could. The bail out showed me first hand that Big Brother really does exist and how easy it is for the institutions to manipulate both the press and politicians - an organised conspiracy is not needed where there is an alignment of self interest. I have a PhD in economics and Lenny has probably never heard of me either - so what do I know. I wasn't saying I didn't value their opinion (I've said throughout this, having initially been undecided, that I was open to comments from anyone and like to think I've been quite receptive to debate), it was a response to your suggestion it should be headline news that several non prominent economists suggested leaving. I know plenty of people with PhDs in economics, too (as someone who studies economics at Uni it rather goes with the territory) who think staying in is a better plan. As Sean (who I believe also holds some postgrad degree in the subject from previous posts) says above its not a science that can ever predict anything! From what you've alluded to on various threads before I believe you work in finance and from what you've said on here you have done some analysis on the likely results of leaving and I'd be interested to hear about it.
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 4, 2016 7:28:49 GMT 1
Sean is right - none of the projections are likely to be right. Picking holes in both sets is pretty easy to do as assumptions are inherently open to question.
Osbourne presented his projection as fact which was crazy if not a bit dishonest - when you look at the assumptions the in and out scenario results overlapped even within one standard deviation. He is a politician well rehearsed in word play to make himself seem correct and others appear wrong. My only point was that when someone points that out and puts forward a different possible result it doesn't get the same air time - I'm actually amazed it got any - there is no way in this debate that the out campaign will have any credibility because the institutions have decided to vote 'in' so nobody with credibility will have the balls to stand up.
The truth is nobody knows what will happen so the financial impact (trade deals et al) shouldn't be a big factor.
Immigration is a more interesting one because I think even Osbourne's model gets a worse result if the EU has open borders with Turkey and we get an influx of 100,000+ additional immigrants. Here it gets all a bit more emotional as the impact is not just financial.
As an institution the best for me is stay in - as a father of 3 kids who I want to have a future here I am voting to leave. If we stay in I will help Osbourne's immigration stats and not retire in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 4, 2016 10:33:34 GMT 1
The debate hasn't caused me to have a moment's reflection on the way I am going to vote (leave) because the protagonists on both sides are so definite in their own minds about the one thing I absolutely know they are not experts in: the future. This applies particularly to economists. I am much more interested in processes and specifically those processes being democratised. I think leaving the EU is one necessary step to doing this because the EU allows politicians and civil servants in other countries who we never voted for making laws that apply to us. This is what it boils down to for me. The erosion of democratically elected decision making is a big issue for me too. I guess what is holding me back from a leave vote is that those EU processes will still be there and impacting on us if we leave. Speaking to an NFU rep recently I was surprised he was voting to stay, but his reasoning was his business would still be doing business with the EU and subject to their rules with no way of influencing the decision making On the subject of democracy I hope everyone will be up early tomorrow to use their vote in the Police Commissioner elections. Results of those could have a big impact on Shropshire Policing levels
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 4, 2016 11:59:42 GMT 1
Part of what dissuades me from the logical argument that leaving would allow us to be more democratic is the fact that we don't live in a true democracy here. Both in the short-term - where we'll be faced with this horrendous incarceration of a government doing everything they can to placate the grey votes at the expense of people like me and indeed pretty much anyone under 65 who isn't a millionaire - and the long term, where because of the system, less than 24% of the electorate voting Tory thanks to believing anything Osborne says despite empirical evidence to the contest is enough to keep them in power. Obviously there's more to it than that. I definitely like the idea of retiring abroad though! At least if we're in the EU it'll be easier for you to move to Spain
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 13:44:47 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 5, 2016 19:14:23 GMT 1
leaving the EU is a necessary rather than a sufficient step to democratise the UK. There may very well be worse impediments but the EU referendum has come along now.
|
|
|
Post by R6ix on May 6, 2016 0:07:27 GMT 1
if we leave the eu , you can still buy a bmw, if you wish to retire to spain and can afford it, who will say no?i heard an mp say leaving the eu was the biggest threat to our own youth unemployment, i didnt hear her say that competing for that part time job at starbucks would mean competing with 500.000 eastern europeans? this govt is desperate for us to stay in, so even if we vote out they will still probably implement the eu directives eitherway?
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 6, 2016 9:01:05 GMT 1
You can get Spanish citizenship simply by buying a property for more than €500k - a lot of the South Americans in the UK got entry into the UK that way; Portugal have just started to compete and make it even easier for the Brazilians who want to come over.
So if we leave the EU there are plenty of back doors to exploit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 11:26:57 GMT 1
So after Cameron's guff last week about how the break up of the EU may lead to war, we have Johnson comparing the political expansion of the EU to that of Napoleon and Hitler's attempts. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36295208I despair, I really do. Do any of our political class have anything remotely intelligent to say about this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 14:52:57 GMT 1
Do any of our political class have anything remotely intelligent to say about this? is that a rhetorical question?
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 15, 2016 15:07:42 GMT 1
It doesn't need to be intelligent to affect the masses. Most of us don't have a clue about anything, we just think we do.
This is a vote and every vote counts, whether you understand or whether you don't, then it's one vote each. You could care deeply about the effect of the decision and understand it fully or you could be incapable of any comprehension as to what any of this even means. Didn't Jade Goody think that East Anglia was in Belgium or something?
Cameron and Johnson know that winning the votes of the Jade Goody's may swing it one way or the other, so they need something that will stick in their minds.
Cameron goes for 'we're all going to war' Johnson goes for 'we'll all be under the control of the next Hitler.'
It's clever enough tactics, but no surprises really. There will be more yet! Farage has already jumped in with 'Boris for next PM'!
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on May 15, 2016 15:12:39 GMT 1
'If you tolerate this your children with be next' #brexit
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on May 15, 2016 22:03:43 GMT 1
The debate hasn't caused me to have a moment's reflection on the way I am going to vote (leave) because the protagonists on both sides are so definite in their own minds about the one thing I absolutely know they are not experts in: the future. This applies particularly to economists. I am much more interested in processes and specifically those processes being democratised. I think leaving the EU is one necessary step to doing this because the EU allows politicians and civil servants in other countries who we never voted for making laws that apply to us. This is what it boils down to for me. totally agree with the first part Sean which is why I will be voting to stay in on the basis of better the devil you know.
|
|
|
Post by keithb123 on May 16, 2016 13:50:51 GMT 1
100% OUT. If, as the majority on here are happy to have a laws dictated to, our borders controlled and not being allowed to sign trade agreements with India, China or the rest of the world by an unelected bunch of gravy train passengers then I guess you'll get what you wish for and if you think that signing up for the TTIP agreement will be a good thing then god help us. We vote for our Members of Parliament and "trust" them to look after our (British) interests.
I'm sure that we will stay in this corrupt Union who's global market share is falling year on year and when it all goes tits up we will have to pay to help put it right.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 16, 2016 14:04:55 GMT 1
100% OUT. If, as the majority on here are happy to have a laws dictated to, our borders controlled and not being allowed to sign trade agreements with India, China or the rest of the world by an unelected bunch of gravy train passengers then I guess you'll get what you wish for and if you think that signing up for the TTIP agreement will be a good thing then god help us. We vote for our Members of Parliament and "trust" them to look after our (British) interests. I'm sure that we will stay in this corrupt Union who's global market share is falling year on year and when it all goes tits up we will have to pay to help put it right. I'm still very much in the undecided group, and while my heart agrees with these sentiments I'm not sure the head agrees Going it alone and returning decision making to a more local level appeals a lot. I think people are too far removed from decision making and returning that power to people is important But having read up on a lot of information on a post EU exit it seems it won't actually give us much more influence on immigration, trade agreements and financial services. I really need the out campaign to put forward real examples of how the future will look and work, and how it will be different and that is really lacking at the moment. They need to move fast though as time is moving on quickly and they can't expect people to take a leap in the dark
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 16, 2016 15:03:15 GMT 1
100% OUT. If, as the majority on here are happy to have a laws dictated to, our borders controlled and not being allowed to sign trade agreements with India, China or the rest of the world by an unelected bunch of gravy train passengers then I guess you'll get what you wish for and if you think that signing up for the TTIP agreement will be a good thing then god help us. We vote for our Members of Parliament and "trust" them to look after our (British) interests. I'm sure that we will stay in this corrupt Union who's global market share is falling year on year and when it all goes tits up we will have to pay to help put it right. We elect MEPs, too. Decisions are made on a national level by a government three-quarters of the electorate haven't voted for, and very few people in my constituency voted for, and these decisions negatively affect us. People looking at starting unviersity in the next few years will see their tuition fees increasing further without having had a chance to have a say in electing the government. It's exactly the same as the problem with the EU but simply scaled down. As for not being allowed to have trade with India and China, that's clearly just wrong. What about all this Chinese steel the EU tried to regulate and our government blocked? I certainly agree that the TTIP is awful - and everyone does - but when the Tories are so keen to push it through secretly, why do you think we won't negotiate a similar, or worse, deal in our own right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 6:42:58 GMT 1
Something like a TTIP deal can still negotiated even if we're outside the EU. It's a Neo-liberal's wet dream.
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 17, 2016 8:45:01 GMT 1
Not sure why we are debating it now - remain have won.
Pulling out would precipitate a chain of defaults in the European banking sector as well as govies - it cannot happen. The ECB and world bank (ie the U.S. Fed) are aligned. The chaos would not just be financial markets - there would be social mayhem as the eu falls apart - it will just not be allowed. How Cameron failed to get the EU to give a better deal is beyond me - the German pension schemes are really creaking after 50%+ falls in Deutsche bank and VW Group; Merkel is against the wall and he let her walk away (even Hollande could see the strength of our hand).
Lenny - as a student of economics you might be interested to watch the markets now and the positions of the key players to judge if the roulette wheel is rigged.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 17, 2016 12:37:48 GMT 1
Might boycott the whole vote. Socialequality.org.uk Hardly helps though does it
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on May 17, 2016 13:39:13 GMT 1
I forecast that the minority vote will end up dissatisfied with the result!!!
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 28, 2016 22:13:41 GMT 1
Still undecided, but I get the 'feel' that 'leave' is on top at the moment. Media (newspapers) seem to be 'leave' but TV seems to be 'stay' although Boris is getting more attention than, erm, whoever is rooting for 'stay'. Oh, yeah the PM!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2016 8:08:55 GMT 1
The whole thing is a tiresome farce.
The media are really only interested in the Tory Civil War, the 'personalities' involved and their dog whistling.
There are some good arguments for voting leave from the left of the political spectrum that is lost in all the white noise from Johnson, Gove, Farrage and Nuttal.
Likewise there are sound reasons to stay in, but all we seem to hear is Cameron's guff.
Glad when it's all over.
|
|