Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)

[jas72]

What don't you understand about free trade costing money?

There will be a membership fee to join the EEA.

 

[Randomface74]

Well it's not free if we have to pay someone. That's both free as in money, and free as in freedom.

 

[Metallifux]

Based on what?

If you have in mind the usual source of that claim, that being Dustmann and Frattini's UCL paper, I'd suggest you go take a long, hard look at exactly what the paper says and in particular, the methodology used. It is not based on an accounting type exercise, like a P&L based on complete and accurate data, but on incomplete data, and based on a whole series of assumptions on what costs to include, how to assess, approximate or allocate costs, and for that matter, revenues.

It is an interesting academic exercise but it needs to be seen as exactly that - can academic paper, full of assumptions and artificial treatments. What it is not is an accurate accounting of either revenues or expenditures. If you change those assumptions, the justification for which is very brief where it exists at all, the can come to completely different results.

Moreover, it's worth looking at what the House of Lords said about immigration impact analyses -That same criticism applies to the UCL paper, and indeed, the paper itself spends a fair bit of time in it's 50-ish pages pointing out the shortcomings, the limited data available, the assumptions made in allocations and so on.

And even if it were 100% accurate and 100% complete, it is still only looking at fiscal impacts and takes no account whatever of either overall impact on the economy or on the social impact. Thus, it ignores other reports suggesting, for example, that immigration impacts on the wages, and employment levels, of the poorest paid.

Let me put that another way. Even if the claim is true, and that overall the fiscal impact is beneficial, it would be prudent to look at the allication of the benefit. For instance, if big businesses, and their owners, benefit hugely from reduced labour costs, but the low-paid suffer from reduced employment levels and suppressed wages then overall there's a net benefit, but at considerable social impact on the poor while the rich get richer.

But hey, immigration must be good because an over-simplified one-line summary says "net benefit", right?

The House of Lords report concluded Yet, it's astonishing how often a one-line tabloid misinterpretation of Dustmann and Frattini is used to do exactly that.

Be very careful how you use simplified summaries from academic papers to justify real-world decisions because, far too often, those academic papers have assumed and allocated the reality out of the subject in order to make it workable at all. The picture from migration reports is nowhere near as clear as simplistic newspaper reporting would have us believe. Don't believe me either? You don't need to. Go read the actual reports, in full, and pay particular attention to the vast array of caveats they contain.

Am I the only one reading Alday's quality posts. Come on remainers you disappoint me. You'd normally rip something like this to shreds to try to show you are in some way better than the poster.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Well it's not free if we have to pay someone. That's both free as in money, and free as in freedom.

Are you purposely ignoring the definition of free trade as free from tariffs?

 

[Mr Jack]

Interesting to see a Swiss perspective on Brexit: The Movie, although it's mostly about Switzerland and it's relationship to the EU.

 

[RaohNS]

Am I the only one reading Alday's quality posts. Come on remainers you disappoint me. You'd normally rip something like this to sheds to try to show you are in some way better than the poster.

Its because they can't.

Leavers have a plausible solution for almost everything the remain camp can throw, but not vice versa eg:

Leave: we can have our own WTO seat
Remain: We can't do that
Leave: Why?
Remain: Because we don't know how to sit down at a seat *tut*
Leave: Really?
Remain: Yes... That's why we have asked the EU to sit down for us...
Leave: Ok... So we will come to our own trade deals
Remain: We can't do that either
Leave: Why not other countries manage it
Remain: Because we don't know how to sign or write and don't know what a pen looks like
Leave: Really?
Remain: Yes... That's why we have asked the EU to write things for us
Leave: Ok we will save £15bn+ in memberships each year
Remain: We wont save that!
Leave: Why not?
Remain: Because we don't know how to spend that money that we wouldn't spend!
Leave: Really?
Remain: Yes... That's why we have asked the EU to spend it for us
Leave: Ok... We can control our borders then
Remain: We can't do that silly!
Leave: Why not?
Remain: Because we don't know how to look after our borders... That's why we let the EU drive a freight train up our backsides
Leave: Can we just change the law on that?
Remain: No of course not!
Leave: Why not?
Remain: Because we have the EU writing our Laws for us now
Leave: ... Is there anything we can do ourselves?
Remain: Hmmm you can be yourselves

 

[estebanrey]

Of all the arguements you could have used you pick possibly the worst example you can find.

Chinese goods face import duties yet can still compete with western made goods, why is that? Could it be that China doesn't have the same living or working standards as Europe, could it be that the wages are far lower in China which allows them to produce goods so cheap that despite import duties they are still cheaper?

So on that basis and taking economics in it's most simple form (that is to make a profit you either sell more or reduce overheads) you would like UK workers to have the same pay and conditions as their Chinese counterparts to negate the lack of free trade?

So what you're saying is the EU is directly causing the deflation of wages and workers' rights in China by imposing tariffs so high they have to have low working standards to compete?

Another reason to leave then. Who wants to be part of an organisation that forces people outside of it to work for a £1 a day?

 

[Mr Jack]

Am I the only one reading Alday's quality posts. Come on remainers you disappoint me. You'd normally rip something like this to sheds to try to show you are in some way better than the poster.

Considered posts deserve considered responses. Considered responses take time.

 

[Metallifux]

Considered posts deserve considered responses. Considered responses take time.

This I like.

 

[RaohNS]

This I like.

How long has this been considered so far with no sign of reply yet?

 

[Six6siX]

Am I the only one reading Alday's quality posts. Come on remainers you disappoint me. You'd normally rip something like this to sheds to try to show you are in some way better than the poster.

What a strange way of looking at a discussion. You seem like you're trying to provoke an argument or something.

Based on what?

If you have in mind the usual source of that claim, that being Dustmann and Frattini's UCL paper, I'd suggest you go take a long, hard look at exactly what the paper says and in particular, the methodology used. It is not based on an accounting type exercise, like a P&L based on complete and accurate data, but on incomplete data, and based on a whole series of assumptions on what costs to include, how to assess, approximate or allocate costs, and for that matter, revenues.

It is an interesting academic exercise but it needs to be seen as exactly that - can academic paper, full of assumptions and artificial treatments. What it is not is an accurate accounting of either revenues or expenditures. If you change those assumptions, the justification for which is very brief where it exists at all, the can come to completely different results.

Moreover, it's worth looking at what the House of Lords said about immigration impact analyses -That same criticism applies to the UCL paper, and indeed, the paper itself spends a fair bit of time in it's 50-ish pages pointing out the shortcomings, the limited data available, the assumptions made in allocations and so on.

And even if it were 100% accurate and 100% complete, it is still only looking at fiscal impacts and takes no account whatever of either overall impact on the economy or on the social impact. Thus, it ignores other reports suggesting, for example, that immigration impacts on the wages, and employment levels, of the poorest paid.

The thing is, the same thing can be said for the 'other reports' in that they extrapolate data to reach their own conclusions and as such, make very similar assumptions to support themselves.

It is therefore necessary to take ALL reports that include any sort of statistical data, assumptions and positive/negative bias by exclusion of conflicting data - whether they support your stance or not - as purely academic and make your own mind up. They shouldn't be taken literally - they are there to provide analytical information and if the reader is unable to correctly process the information that is presented in conjunction with other data (conflicting or otherwise), they simply do not understand what they are reading.

I will hold anyone's opinion in the greatest of respect - even if it is the polar opposite of my own - as long as they have considered it properly. My issue with the vast majority of this debate comes from people who spout rhetoric and try to back it up with insular, heavily biased articles or reports to gain a point. The wider problem is that the majority of people use this same approach when it comes to their vote. I can't lay the blame solely with the individuals however. The information, facts and figures being published through campaigning in general leaves a lot to be desired.

Let me put that another way. Even if the claim is true, and that overall the fiscal impact is beneficial, it would be prudent to look at the allication of the benefit. For instance, if big businesses, and their owners, benefit hugely from reduced labour costs, but the low-paid suffer from reduced employment levels and suppressed wages then overall there's a net benefit, but at considerable social impact on the poor while the rich get richer.

I'm not sure I completely see what you are getting at here (besides the old 'they're coming here and taking our jobs' line) - can you explain why you say that immigration, in general, results in reduced labour costs? If it's because you feel that immigrants will work for less (in line with the minimum wage), then why won't a British person do the same job for the same money? If you argue that the minimum wage is not enough, then who controls that? Alternatively, everyone, if they so wish has options available to move themselves forward via training or education to advance with their career or into a different job.

You also appear to overlook the fact that a huge number of immigrants are not at the low end of the work force. In fact, immigration brings in a considerable skill set and diversity to the British work place in all industries - it is almost impossible to imagine some industries in this country operating successfully without the large number of people from Europe and further afield that contribute to society (both social and economically).

It brings me back to my original point - it's all very well to chastise someone for citing a particular source and not properly considering the associated caveats and all possible scenarios, but you, yourself are doing the same.

 

[Zethor]

Based on what?
...

The picture from migration reports is nowhere near as clear as simplistic newspaper reporting would have us believe. Don't believe me either? You don't need to. Go read the actual reports, in full, and pay particular attention to the vast array of caveats they contain.

The picture is quite clear the only problem is they contradict you preconceived ideas.

Firstly, assuming that these academic papers have incorrect conclusions, where are the academic papers with the correct conclusions? Is the research that supports your ideas supressed?

Secondly, even if we assume your criticism is valid, use other variables and conclude EU migrants have a zero or even negative effect, you ignore the huge negative fiscal impact natives have. No matter what variables you use and what numbers you twist, the natives always have a much larger negative impact compared to migrants. It's obvious why that is: migrants don't require taxpayer money to mature, receive education etc. Futhermore, they are on average better educated than natives.

EU migrants are simply more cost effective, there is no denying this. The concerns re migrants have no grounds in terms of economics.

 

[scorza]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36427153

Interesting article on this week's announcement that the European Commission had teamed up with Big Tech to curb free hate speech online and the inevitable backlash.

On Tuesday four big tech giants, Microsoft, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook announced that they had agreed on a code of conduct with the European Commission to take down "hate speech" within 24 hours of it being posted on social media. And social media has reacted. Strongly.

The aim of the guidelines, said the press statement, was to remove content that is "genuine and serious incitement to violence and hatred". Vĕra Jourová, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, who spearheaded the creation of the code, also specifically name-checked the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels.
...
However where some see sensible new safeguards others see the stifling of free speech and debate. And #IStandWithHateSpeech - which is not an entirely new hashtag - has been trending in the United States - which will not be covered by the new EU initiative - and other countries which will be. It's been tweeted more than 80,000 times in the last couple of days

 

[RaohNS]

The picture is quite clear the only problem is they contradict you preconceived ideas.

Firstly, assuming that these academic papers have incorrect conclusions, where are the academic papers with the correct conclusions? Is the research that supports your ideas supressed?

Secondly, even if we assume your criticism is valid, use other variables and conclude EU migrants have a zero or even negative effect, you ignore the huge negative fiscal impact natives have. No matter what variables you use and what numbers you twist, the natives always have a much larger negative impact compared to migrants. It's obvious why that is: migrants don't require taxpayer money to mature, receive education etc. Futhermore, they are on average better educated than natives.

EU migrants are simply more cost effective, there is no denying this. The concerns re migrants have no grounds in terms of economics.

First point we get. Finding conclusions to all the information would in actuality be a gargantuan task. Kids can cost from £5,000-£170,000 per year to secure. Its a lot of cheddar.

Second point holds a lot of substance. In my time working with unemployed I probably had all of 3 people who were European migrants who were unemployed. The one in particular I remember was Norwegian and she had no interest in a job. I thought at the time "oh you'll fit right in here".

Are they on average better educated? How does their qualifications link to areas (particularly those with low socioeconomic areas or depressed areas). For example we know there are extremely highly qualified people working in London and the South East. Most of the high skilled (highly qualified is probably better) focus around healthcare roles in my experience.

The problem is in Europe, there will have arrived inside of the next year 2million plus people with virtually no industry recognized qualifications. That number even if we get 3% of that would reverse the current setting.

 

[Rilot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36429325

EU commission warning Poland about their constitutional changes. While I disagree with Poland's current direction I'm not happy with the EU commission putting its oar in. At the end of the day the current Polish government are the democratically elected representatives of the Polish people.

 

[RaohNS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36427153

Interesting article on this week's announcement that the European Commission had teamed up with Big Tech to curb free hate speech online and the inevitable backlash.

Freedom if speech is gone now. This has been spearheaded in part by a lot of extremely duplicitous feminazis as well as with the connivance of supposedly liberalist government backing.

In my view, curtailing free speech is a very real step towards fascism. Its a funny old world.

 

[RaohNS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36429325

EU commission warning Poland about their constitutional changes. While I disagree with Poland's current direction I'm not happy with the EU commission putting its oar in. At the end of the day the current Polish government are the democratically elected representatives of the Polish people.

The EU is doing a great job of proving just how undemocratic it is. Its almost fair to say the Leave camp could just ignore it and let the EU do all the damage to themselves. Exculpatory actions and all.

 

[Zethor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36429325

EU commission warning Poland about their constitutional changes. While I disagree with Poland's current direction I'm not happy with the EU commission putting its oar in. At the end of the day the current Polish government are the democratically elected representatives of the Polish people.

So what if they are elected? If they go into full nutter phase(that's the current direction) they lose their voting rights and everyone willingly signed up to this rule.

 

[RaohNS]

So what if they are elected? If they go into full nutter phase(that's the current direction) they lose their voting rights and everyone willingly signed up to this rule.

I'm sorry... You're saying democracy doesn't matter and that the will of the people mean severe sanction? Just so we're clear on that?

Everyone signed up to it? Oh so because of that the people are now trapped. Glad we have that crystal clear right there. That is called authoritarianism folks. You can dress it any way you want but the monster underneath still has its horns.

 

[Tunney]

Freedom if speech is gone now.

When have we ever had it? Freedom of speech has never been enshrined in UK law. The closest we've ever had is the Human Rights Act but that has many exceptions.

In fact, Britain has always had very draconian defamation laws. Blaming 'feminazis' just demonstrates your own prejudices.