Corporations are not people, they make rational decisions based on what they believe will affect their bottom line. People on the other hand often make emotional decisions based on gut, truthiness, prejudice. Since the overwhelming majority of evidence points towards negative effects after an exit, it's clear that the exit camp followers are governed by emotions not reason.
Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)
- Thread starter RJC
- Start date
- Status
Corporations are not people, they make rational decisions based on what they believe will affect their bottom line. People on the other hand often make emotional decisions based on gut, truthiness, prejudice. Since the overwhelming majority of evidence points towards negative effects after an exit, it's clear that the exit camp followers are governed by emotions not reason.
What evidence? So far we've had Nissan and Toyota stating that Brexit won't affect their plans for UK investment at all and HSBC stating that 1000 London jobs will be transferred to Paris, which for a company the size of HSBC doesn't seem like the end of the world to me.
You shouldn't dismiss emotion as an invalid input to a decision. Human emotion has evolved over time and plays an important part in our thought processes. There are plenty of logical reasons to leave the EU (not least its democracy problem) and I say if something doesn't look, feel or behave right then it's probably not right and the UK being governed by Brussels certainly fits into that category for me.
HA! No, corporations are not ultra-rational optimisers that you describe; they're bumbling collectives prone to group-think and the failings and prejudices of their leaders. Corporations are frequently extremely short-termist in their decision making and often, perhaps even normally, make mistakes.
I agree, the rules are set and we should just be given our vote to settle it once and for all. I don't have any faith that any special exemptions agreed now would be around for long. Personally I'd just like to get out of the EU as quick as possible.
Maybe because we keep hearing about how important the UK is to the EU, maybe because he's the British Prime Minister and as such should be afforded the respect that the position demands, maybe because his ideas would actually improve the EU and possibly reverse this "tide of populism" that the EU grandees find so distasteful.
Corporations frequently make dumb decisions, usually because there is one person at the top that looks at facts provided and makes a decision based on the facts then they add their own gut, truthiness and prejudice...to think otherwise is naive. Look how many large corporations that have gone under and banks that did or almost went under...as a result of the decisions being ultimately made by the person in charge at that time. We'd never get it but I'd like to have real facts spelling out the pro's and con's of EU membership to me, my kids, their kids, their kids kids etc. This will never happen though as there is always someone in charge at the top who has their own slant to whatever the question is.
The UK is not so important that our membership is worth trashing the EU for.
He is being. What he's not being given is ultra-super-special status above all the other democratically elected leaders in the EU.
None of his ideas improve the EU.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
They can also make short term decisions rather than long term in many cases too (clearly not rational). To state every business is automatically rational is to ignore a lot of bad business practice and (as some have said) even political practice if we are to believe that the EU made all the right choices and tory and labour made a bunch of bad ones. Some businesses make mistakes because they are ran by, you guessed it, people.
While I generally vote for what I believe benefits most people and not just me (or my country) there's no reason to believe we can't do something better than the EU if it goes to crap. It's not exactly the fault of UK people that if something doesn't work for them that they feel it should be reworked. The EU has a clear and fair chance to get things changed thanks to the negotiations, if they are so inflexible unable to offer any compromise then you can't blame people for wondering how that inflexibility, one glove fits all approach will work not just now but maybe 10 or 20 or even 50 / 100 years from now. I don't feel the EU is a very good structure in how much powers it allows the member nations to have, in how it manages forced migration, in how it just doesn't acknowledge or apply to different styles of government / welfare (like our NHS and benefits system not being that realistic when it comes to free movement). I've yet to see the EU show much good management on higher issues as well, with greece they've put them in the pan, with turkey they've failed to reduce the amount of migrants crossing the border (admittedly it could be worse but handing large sums to turkey and assuming they'd fix it all themselves was a bit naive), we've done nothing to manage issues in other countries like the mexico drug wars, isis / middle east situations and even financial crashes. Everything that seems to be a global issue that being in the EU should have gave has more control over seems to have done barely anything. Why stay lumbered to a huge organisation that is not fit for purpose? We trade well and get a lot of hidden costs back, lose a lot of democracy for our people and lack the ability to decide on many local issues (deportation of criminals, taxation, human rights issues which everyone can have a different opinion on extreme cases etc.).
I like how it gives us some say in the international affairs and a stronger global presence but I've yet to see them do anything or live up to that, I like the trade benefits but I'm unconvinced that the public will just be footing the bill of migrants, EU fee's, taxation restrictions (and lack of being able to act quickly on tax / migration etc. without EU butting in) while businesses just promote that they'll rake in more from the free market. I'm also unconviced so far on the EU's decision making processes ala schengen practically collapsing due to not even having borders on the outside and there overall inability to make any meaningful compromises democractically to give more sovereignity to member nations. It's a good organisation all in all but the UK is definitely more important (for the UK) than just jumping blindly to easy answers that might not be fit for purpose come the long run. Still it very well might be so I'm not saying the EU is all that bad but they've had a while to impress us and it's not really shown much results tbh.
Last edited:
To clarify, I intended my comment to be understood from the point of view of other EU nations. Other EU nations don't believe having the UK in the EU is worth trashing the EU for.
It's unrealistic to expect to get rapid change from a huge structure like the EU. Cameron should have been laying the groundwork for the negotiations for years, and building connections and alliances. He hasn't done this and what we're seeing is the result. It's also rather poor timing, the EU has a number of very pressing issues that need addressing. Dealing with the UK squalling about domestic concerns isn't high on the other leader's list.
I agree. More power needs to be moved from the member nations to the democratically elected parliament and the parliament needs a directly elected leader.
It's hard to argue that the EU is dealing poorly with a number of issues at the moment - the treatment of Greece is the worst of them - but the EU has, for the most part, been a great success over the years. Even the much derided Euro has plenty of positives to its name.
The human rights issues are the ECHR not the EU.
I was told earlier this week that 6/7 of the biggest mining companies had left LBMA in the last week or so, including Rio Tinto Zinc, rtz has some very old school owners if they have left LBMA it's huge news regarding London's trustworthiness as a financial centre and is a direct result of the constant huge "rigging" that goes on in the city.
We should not vote out under the impression that London's position as a financial centre is guaranteed.
The derisory negotiations results obtained by nice guy div are almost them saying **** off you yank loving pigs.
Ed. Also I've just read that France wants all of their gold out of London to be stored in Frankfurt by 2020 at the latest, that shows their faith in London as a financial centre.
We should not vote out under the impression that London's position as a financial centre is guaranteed.
The derisory negotiations results obtained by nice guy div are almost them saying **** off you yank loving pigs.
Ed. Also I've just read that France wants all of their gold out of London to be stored in Frankfurt by 2020 at the latest, that shows their faith in London as a financial centre.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
The thread moves on pretty quick.
At a glance, the debate hasn't advanced much. So I'll continue on the point OldCoals raised, since other posters on the Out side are broadly advancing on the same line -- who's benefiting, and are the foreign 'types' all (or majority) unskilled, unemployed boors?
Let's look at the UK social grade data approximated from the latest census (2011), which followed and preceded important migration peaks:
So 54% -- majority -- are in higher social grades, not including about 1-2% of the 'upper class', which isn't in the official classification; benefiting from annual wage growth of 2% or more, with 1 in 4 chaps skewing the distribution by getting between 0%-1.1% growth (or a cut, if you're on benefits) on average. There's no causal link between recent migration and lower benefits and lower working class wages; wage suppression is a heady mix of: the government's economic policy; economic composition and competitive advantages; global financial outlook, stagnant productivity; inter-sector industrial competition for labour; skills and development policy and so on. Leaving the EU won't drastically resolve the lot, and there's a real risk of total disaster for the sections of the population with the least resources and opportunities.
Now, to avoid 'twisting' the facts, I trust you can do the percentages for grades 6/7/8 for migrants:
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/datasets...6,7,8,9&rows=c_nssec&cols=c_migr&tools=hidden
What's the distribution like? Do the different social ranks bear their proportional share of competition? You can use NOMIS to extract data for recent migrants (less than a year in the country), and other stats from the census too, including age, household composition, ethnicity, regional concentration etc. Even should we assume not everyone has bothered with the census -- the sample is of high very quality -- the overall picture doesn't back the alarmist stance over recent migration trends.
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/uk_migration -- the UK migration section; you can also cross-reference to the data for migration by country of origin to filter out the East-EU; but if you remove Non-EU/Commonwealth migrants, your case becomes even weaker.
More on skill gaps, business reaction to them and our recent labour policy. This was published around the time of the last census too:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....oyers-labour-shortages-and-immigration-policy
The site itself is a good browse on other issues relating to immigration. Its take is more broad than that of the ONS.
TL;DR: Economic migration doesn't destroy or disproportionately affect low-income workers. Businesses and the nation at large benefit from the steady inflow of skills, consumers and sheer numbers in sectors with low barrier to entry but high unfilled demand; which we cannot supply internally quickly enough, and in large enough volumes to both discourage economic migration and sustain our economy at its present level and competitive edge. Plus, as mentioned in the separate example of Ireland, we also happen successfully attract our own best and brightest to return when the economic climate is relatively good; which is true even in recessions (hence higher net migration).
Which is why FT rapped Cameron as far back as 2014 over his increasingly politicized stance on EU migration. The EU critics didn't have a sound case then, they don't have one now. Hence why the populist branch of Leave and GO are so agog about aiming at the Syrian refugee crisis as a valid target for their ire with the EU. It's their last hope in attempting to stir the gullible into pulling up the draw bridges and covering in Fortress Britain away from the modern world.
--------------------------------------
As for scorza's appeal to 'emotional reasoning', sure psychology is a factor, but basing your policy and important life decisions on emotional surges is demagoguery; and this style of government doesn't have a great track record of accomplishment. Unless one considers Russia and North Korea great, successful examples...
You might as well just give up on life, set the stock exchange on fire and entertain the population with regular lynch mobs for all the good it'll do you in building a better future. In uncertain decision-making -- that is time-constrained and non-linear (lots of interactive variables linked in a non-obvious way), which is basically all of the thinking about the future -- results are both counter-intuitive and hard to get at just by guessing and feeling. You can't even do trial and error well enough if you go by 'what feels right', as your decisions will just reflect your biases, however formed, ignoring data indicators and errors of judgement. The world is replete with emotional pseudo-science advocated by cranks as it is, don't add to it.
Emotion adds to uncertainty, it doesn't solve problems by anything other than sheer, dumb luck. And it's predictive power is often worse than arbitrary chance. But I guess I'll bore everyone here to a catatonic state if I start talking about complex systems and gamblers' ruins, so I'll refrain.
At a glance, the debate hasn't advanced much. So I'll continue on the point OldCoals raised, since other posters on the Out side are broadly advancing on the same line -- who's benefiting, and are the foreign 'types' all (or majority) unskilled, unemployed boors?Let's look at the UK social grade data approximated from the latest census (2011), which followed and preceded important migration peaks:
- 25% working class or not working (~5% + a shadow figure of those who aren't economically active but do not register as unemployed)
- 21% skilled working class
- 46% total for working class, skilled working class or not working
So 54% -- majority -- are in higher social grades, not including about 1-2% of the 'upper class', which isn't in the official classification; benefiting from annual wage growth of 2% or more, with 1 in 4 chaps skewing the distribution by getting between 0%-1.1% growth (or a cut, if you're on benefits) on average. There's no causal link between recent migration and lower benefits and lower working class wages; wage suppression is a heady mix of: the government's economic policy; economic composition and competitive advantages; global financial outlook, stagnant productivity; inter-sector industrial competition for labour; skills and development policy and so on. Leaving the EU won't drastically resolve the lot, and there's a real risk of total disaster for the sections of the population with the least resources and opportunities.
Now, to avoid 'twisting' the facts, I trust you can do the percentages for grades 6/7/8 for migrants:
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/datasets...6,7,8,9&rows=c_nssec&cols=c_migr&tools=hidden
What's the distribution like? Do the different social ranks bear their proportional share of competition? You can use NOMIS to extract data for recent migrants (less than a year in the country), and other stats from the census too, including age, household composition, ethnicity, regional concentration etc. Even should we assume not everyone has bothered with the census -- the sample is of high very quality -- the overall picture doesn't back the alarmist stance over recent migration trends.
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/uk_migration -- the UK migration section; you can also cross-reference to the data for migration by country of origin to filter out the East-EU; but if you remove Non-EU/Commonwealth migrants, your case becomes even weaker.
More on skill gaps, business reaction to them and our recent labour policy. This was published around the time of the last census too:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....oyers-labour-shortages-and-immigration-policy
The site itself is a good browse on other issues relating to immigration. Its take is more broad than that of the ONS.
TL;DR: Economic migration doesn't destroy or disproportionately affect low-income workers. Businesses and the nation at large benefit from the steady inflow of skills, consumers and sheer numbers in sectors with low barrier to entry but high unfilled demand; which we cannot supply internally quickly enough, and in large enough volumes to both discourage economic migration and sustain our economy at its present level and competitive edge. Plus, as mentioned in the separate example of Ireland, we also happen successfully attract our own best and brightest to return when the economic climate is relatively good; which is true even in recessions (hence higher net migration).
Which is why FT rapped Cameron as far back as 2014 over his increasingly politicized stance on EU migration. The EU critics didn't have a sound case then, they don't have one now. Hence why the populist branch of Leave and GO are so agog about aiming at the Syrian refugee crisis as a valid target for their ire with the EU. It's their last hope in attempting to stir the gullible into pulling up the draw bridges and covering in Fortress Britain away from the modern world.
--------------------------------------
As for scorza's appeal to 'emotional reasoning', sure psychology is a factor, but basing your policy and important life decisions on emotional surges is demagoguery; and this style of government doesn't have a great track record of accomplishment. Unless one considers Russia and North Korea great, successful examples...
You might as well just give up on life, set the stock exchange on fire and entertain the population with regular lynch mobs for all the good it'll do you in building a better future. In uncertain decision-making -- that is time-constrained and non-linear (lots of interactive variables linked in a non-obvious way), which is basically all of the thinking about the future -- results are both counter-intuitive and hard to get at just by guessing and feeling. You can't even do trial and error well enough if you go by 'what feels right', as your decisions will just reflect your biases, however formed, ignoring data indicators and errors of judgement. The world is replete with emotional pseudo-science advocated by cranks as it is, don't add to it.
Emotion adds to uncertainty, it doesn't solve problems by anything other than sheer, dumb luck. And it's predictive power is often worse than arbitrary chance. But I guess I'll bore everyone here to a catatonic state if I start talking about complex systems and gamblers' ruins, so I'll refrain.
its funny pro eu groups/people keep going on about how it doesnt effect wages yet it really does you guys just seem to shout people down claiming all the stories are 2nd hand and made up.
iv seen it first hand, hell iv experienced it i guess im wrong or something.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
I would be fine with extending the European model to the world at large, when the time comes. Nobody should be constrained solely by accident of birth.
But for now, if I cannot have ideal free movement, I'll settle for the next best thing -- free movement with our closest geographical neighbours in the largest common market area in the world. Pragmatic, makes more than it costs, maintains peace. Extremists and conspiracy nuts will always exist. So we are more secure as a bloc than we are as a loose assembly of non-cooperating fortresses that attempt to unilaterally dictate their will upon the world, which often disagrees, without design or reason, with our assessments of whatever form of divine exceptionalism you want to shake a stick at.
It is also worth pointing out that it was our government that decided to squeeze non-EU migration with almost arbitrary requirements -- it wasn't an EU directive, it was a domestic political decision to one-up a few kippers and squeeze a few LibDems at the last GE. It gave Cameron a majority he wanted, amidst other factors, and handed your a referendum you so crave. So swings and roundabouts -- every political gambit has a cost.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,721
- Location
- Welling, London
I stopped reading there. That is an utterly irresponsible viewpoint. Opening up the country to the world would destroy it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
its funny pro eu groups/people keep going on about how it doesnt effect wages yet it really does you guys just seem to shout people down claiming all the stories are 2nd hand and made up.
iv seen it first hand, hell iv experienced it i guess im wrong or something.
I saw cars and buses run over pedestrians in the UK; all UK drivers are killers, and they're coming after us all!!! Thus traffic deaths are the chief cause of deaths in the UK, and all motor vehicles should be banned!
Am I doing it right?
Or would you like a Luddite example about mills destroying our jerbs instead, and how that turned out for the nation?
- Status