EU Referendum date set ....

[peterb]

Certainly. But I thought it brought in an interesting perspective on how a British exit from the EU could change the game elsewhere. I think it's very worthwhile people casting their eyes on a global scale and thinking more creatively, rather than narrowing things down to just Europe and the UK. In one way, a British exit would mean looking at Britain in a whole new way, with new freedom to pursue international relationships differently, I think it's worth pondering some of those possibilities.

Absolutely. We had very good trade relations with African countries, New Zealand and Australia (although they were more closely integrated with the Commonwealth than they are now, and some at the time were still colonies, or only recently obtained independence). And we still do trade with those countries, although some of the arguments for NOT joining the Common Market (as it was then) was that we would lose out on trade with those countries.

If we have something to sell, and have a buyer, or vice versa, then trade will follow. Yes, there may be so,e negotiation of the precise arrangements, and that may mean more work for politicians/civil servants, but so be it. But we don't know what that cost will be, and certainly not if it will exceed the net payments we make to the EU as the cost of membership.

[SeriousSam]

If a reform is just and the benefit is demonstrable then it should ultimately win out because you should be able to convince everyone else of the benefit.

This assumes rational thought always trumps biological, emotional and social conditioning. The sad truth is that it rarely does and in some environments it never will. Sometimes to win an argument you need to stop being involved in the immediate drama surrounding it and demonstrate by example.

It has become increasingly clear to me that the UK being in the EU is actually making things worse within the EU because we get preferential treatment. This breeds resentment among the other nations and makes them deaf to our concerns. However, if we were to leave and be a success based on in part some of the things we said needed to change with the EU, they would take notice.

[kalniel]

This assumes rational thought always trumps biological, emotional and social conditioning.

I am a rationalist, true. But I believe anyone with enough education can be as well and it's the soundest (and I think should be the sole) basis for policy. It's still rational to take into account an emotional response to something for example.

[The Hand]

Just to lob in a curved ball; the London Stock Exchange is in merger talks with Deutsche Börse. It feels as if the referendum doesn't matter to business.. and maybe it doesn't, even with all the scaremongering flying around.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...-german-rival/

[Saracen]

I am a rationalist, true. But I believe anyone with enough education can be as well and it's the soundest (and I think should be the sole) basis for policy. It's still rational to take into account an emotional response to something for example.

But then that opens another can of worms for an issue which can be judged on many criteria, not all of them easily quantifiable. We often hear arguments over whether the UK would be "better off" in or out, but rarely do we get a definition of "better off", or how you measure it. For instance, most individuals would be financially better off by working 12 hour days, 7 days a week .... up to the point you collapsed of exhaustion or dropped dead years ahead of expectations from a heart attack. For an economy, does a higher GDP justify loss of sovereignty? And if it does, how much marginal GDP, and what extent of sovereignty? How do we develop a formula, or economic model, for pricing sovereignty in 0.1% increase in GDP?

And that's just two factors. What if there's five, or ten?

What if person A considers immigration a good thing, IF at a controlled rate, person B thinks it's good at any rate, and person C thinks we already have had too many in recent years and any more is too much. Those opinions might be based on irrational prejudices, or on personal experiences but that will vary based on age, and where you got your experiences. So what might seem irrational, emotive or even ignorant prejudice to one person is entirely rational to someone else with a different set of life experiences.

So, now add immigration into that pricing formula between sovereignty and marginal rates of change in GDP, and how can we be entirely rational and objective? After all, we're all products of our life experiences and what might feel cool and rational looking from the inside out might feel very different looking at it from the outside.

Saracen, aka Spock. Live Long and Prosper.

[kalniel]

Oh I agree that different people have different criteria, but in the case of a referendum or democratic vote on something I don't see what's wrong with presenting it rationally so that people can rationally judge based on their criteria.

Rationality doesn't have to be cold - quite the opposite as I'd argue taking emotions into account is a rational thing to do - there are very rational arguments for compassion and so on

[excalibur2]

Well I don't understand why all the smaller countries didn't back the UK for all its initial demands (well of course within reason) as without the UK there is no counter weight to being ruled by France and Germany.

[spacein_vader]

But then that opens another can of worms for an issue which can be judged on many criteria, not all of them easily quantifiable. We often hear arguments over whether the UK would be "better off" in or out, but rarely do we get a definition of "better off", or how you measure it. For instance, most individuals would be financially better off by working 12 hour days, 7 days a week .... up to the point you collapsed of exhaustion or dropped dead years ahead of expectations from a heart attack. For an economy, does a higher GDP justify loss of sovereignty? And if it does, how much marginal GDP, and what extent of sovereignty? How do we develop a formula, or economic model, for pricing sovereignty in 0.1% increase in GDP?

And that's just two factors. What if there's five, or ten?

What if person A considers immigration a good thing, IF at a controlled rate, person B thinks it's good at any rate, and person C thinks we already have had too many in recent years and any more is too much. Those opinions might be based on irrational prejudices, or on personal experiences but that will vary based on age, and where you got your experiences. So what might seem irrational, emotive or even ignorant prejudice to one person is entirely rational to someone else with a different set of life experiences.

So, now add immigration into that pricing formula between sovereignty and marginal rates of change in GDP, and how can we be entirely rational and objective? After all, we're all products of our life experiences and what might feel cool and rational looking from the inside out might feel very different looking at it from the outside.

Saracen, aka Spock. Live Long and Prosper.

Agree with all of this. The fact that it is all so complex and hard to measure makes me still more convinced a referendum is a bad way to decide this. If those who do this for a living can't make measured arguments the rest of us have little hope of ever deciphering it, especially when the signal to noise ratio of facts vs spin is only going to get worse in the next few months?

On that note, anyone on here who was old enough to vote on the EEC referendum? If so was it this hard to get any reliable information to go on then?

[excalibur2]

Agree with all of this. The fact that it is all so complex and hard to measure makes me still more convinced a referendum is a bad way to decide this. If those who do this for a living can't make measured arguments the rest of us have little hope of ever deciphering it, especially when the signal to noise ratio of facts vs spin is only going to get worse in the next few months?

On that note, anyone on here who was old enough to vote on the EEC referendum? If so was it this hard to get any reliable information to go on then?

Yeah I voted for in believing we were joining a trading club but the politicians never mentioned it's all about a superstate and being ruled by Brussels.

[SeriousSam]

We may not see what is wrong with looking at this rationally, but the last thing some people want is a sensible and meaningful discussion because they could lose. Far better to manipulate people through emotion as it has a proven track record.

As an example the rational answer to the question of what will be the overall economic impact of the UK leaving the EU is "unknown". Even if you then ask more specific questions relating to this at best you get; if x then y, or if a then b, oh and you can't rule out if an bit of x and a then z. There are SO many unknowns due the fact that anything could happen during the exit negotiations that anyone who categorically states any particular position is (a) lying to suit their own agenda or (b) deluded enough to think they know the answer. Now some of the more economically minded among us Hexites may be able to point to some specific examples where an outcome could be predicted with certainty, but that does not an overall picture make.

Yet we have all these big businesses saying jobs are at threat if we leave the EU. Newsflash - jobs are at threat whether we are in the EU or not. Plus lets face facts; China and the USA have a much more significant impact on our economy than any shenanigans in the EU. So why make the statement if it is patently disingenuous? Could it be that large companies gain a competitive advantage by our being in the EU. Perhaps they are just projecting their own fear and uncertainty about not knowing what would happen into worst case scenarios. Only they know or at least thing they know. The thing is does anyone here believe that they are thinking about the welfare of their UK employees rather than just stock price and personal bonuses.


Kalniel - I don't disagree that the best basis for policy etc. is rationale which does not ignore the fact that we are still an emotional animal. However, education on its own is not enough, although it has a significant part to play. There is a big difference between "knowing a thing" and "understanding a thing" especially when it comes to self. Joe Bloggs may know who he is, but unless he understands why he is who he is, emotions and conditioning will have a more significant impact on decision making than rationale.

[Saracen]

Oh I agree that different people have different criteria, but in the case of a referendum or democratic vote on something I don't see what's wrong with presenting it rationally so that people can rationally judge based on their criteria.

Rationality doesn't have to be cold - quite the opposite as I'd argue taking emotions into account is a rational thing to do - there are very rational arguments for compassion and so on

Oh, no, I'm not falling for that. Nicely baited, Kal, but I can see the hook just fine. I had that argument during a philosophy course at university. Once was enough, thanks.

[HalloweenJack]

what if the currently EU , in some countries opinion doesn't actually *need* any reform? then the UK is at a brick wall

[BobF64]

The way I see it is that there are one and a half unknowns.

The one being that we don't know what will happen if we leave, no one can provide any evidence for it, nor can anyone make promises or assurances over leaving.

The half being that we know some of what will happen if we remain in, despite what 'assurances' might have been gained and yet there is a lot that no one can predict.


Personally, I'm undecided now, especially after reading a news article about Norway and how little control they have over things when wanting to deal with trading into the EU.

[HalloweenJack]

got a link about Norway I can read?

[aidanjt]

Oh I agree that different people have different criteria, but in the case of a referendum or democratic vote on something I don't see what's wrong with presenting it rationally so that people can rationally judge based on their criteria.

Rationality doesn't have to be cold - quite the opposite as I'd argue taking emotions into account is a rational thing to do - there are very rational arguments for compassion and so on

But that would also mean subjective opinions on who one should be compassionate for. For example, labour and EU politicians make a lot of grandiose proclamations of compassion for immigrants, while ignoring the well-being of the people who were born in Britain/EU states. Conservatives have a lot of 'compassion' for the freedom and prosperity of the wealthy, while ignoring the plight of the plebs.

[Saracen]

....

Personally, I'm undecided now, especially after reading a news article about Norway and how little control they have over things when wanting to deal with trading into the EU.

But unless we want or agree to a deal like Norway, what relevance does that have? Is anyone calling for a Norway-type deal?