Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Eloise posted:

andarkian posted:

Swings and roundabouts! Just watch what happens over the next few days and months with the Dutch, French and German elections. Of course the pound took a battering at Brexit, it was an easy victim for the currency marketeers. They'll soon have newer victims to pick on. The pound was overvalued anyway as it was perceived as a safe haven within the EU. 

Everyone says that NOW ... yet they were clamouring to ensure the pound stayed at a high value before.

To paraphrase Barry Ryan, "My Eloise I would please her if I could." But that ain't gonna happen! Get with the program Eloise, join the dark side. 

andarkian posted:

Dave***t posted:

Willy posted:

 

 

An unelected Council of Ministers pouring endless diktats down on us little people far removed from Brussels is a good starting point. 

 

I've seen this phrase used many times, often by the right-wing Press.  The Council of Ministers is made up of ministers from each of the 28 member states, each of which operates a democracy (a condition for membership of the EU).  So the while not expressly elected to be part of the Council of Ministers, all them will have been elected in their respective member states.  In other words, if such a criticism can be levelled at the Council of Ministers it can also be levelled at HMG. For example, nobody elected Boris J to be Foreign Secretary, but he was elected as an MP. 

MDS posted:

andarkian posted:

Dave***t posted:

Willy posted:

 

 

An unelected Council of Ministers pouring endless diktats down on us little people far removed from Brussels is a good starting point. 

 

I've seen this phrase used many times, often by the right-wing Press.  The Council of Ministers is made up of ministers from each of the 28 member states, each of which operates a democracy (a condition for membership of the EU).  So the while not expressly elected to be part of the Council of Ministers, all them will have been elected in their respective member states.  In other words, if such a criticism can be levelled at the Council of Ministers it can also be levelled at HMG. For example, nobody elected Boris J to be Foreign Secretary, but he was elected as an MP. 

Boris J per se cannot create laws that are imposed on us or any other foreign government. I was well aware that the Ministers were appointed by the individual member states.

Willy posted:

Would agree with you on being unable to prove the counterfactual however you can't disprove it either. Certainly on the Euro I'd suggest that on the balance of probabilities we'd have been worse off if we'd joined.

I suppose on the question of the Euro: its whether you see that all thats important is how the UK does, or if the rest of Europe is important too.  On the whole EU issue; it appears to me that there is a divide between those who see the EU only for what it can do for the UK (which in the 40 years the UK has been a member is arguably to make the UK a much stronger, "bigger" country that it would otherwise have been) and those who see the close union with the rest of the EU being for the mutual benefit of all in Europe.

Thats a debate which is now past debate and of course we are leaving ... 

I would suggest that the counterfactual also applies to QE. Whilst you can assert that it staved off a recession this cannot be proven. More importantly there is a case that the longer term damage to the economy from QE may be worse than a shorter term recession. The background to Keynsian economics was forged in a time when money supply was a lot tighter and less fluid than it is these days. It has been suggested that Keynes would be horrified by what has been done in his name. But again I accept that it's difficult to prove the case on QE without tapping into the multiverse.

It sounds like you want the "unable to prove the counterfactual" argument both ways.  

The fact is that the UK economy has been doing reasonably well compared with the rest of Europe.  Part of the economic policy has been QE; therefore QE has worked because you can't know what would have happened without QE.

Of course QE (and other policies) post the crash weren't just about the economy but also about politics.  It might have been better for the economy for the banks to fail and people to loose their homes, their savings, etc.; but morally and politically that just couldn't be allowed to happen.

On 2007 I'd liken it to the man who jumped off a tall building. As he passed each floor he could be heard to say "all right so far". If the economist's models were any good they would have spotted the signs in 2007 that all wasn't well. Or maybe more importantly if they gotten out and talked to more businesses they'd have spotted the rumblings which were apparent in mid 2007.

The main problem is we don't seam to have "learned" anything from the 2007 crash ... the government still want more and more private borrowing because that also helps the economy.

My original point is that when it comes to predictions of what the macroeconomic effect of any particular action might be there are plenty, and varied, to choose from hence the difficulty in selecting one, or even a narrow confidence interval, for the effect of Brexit. Can't recall who but someone once said something along the lines of "the purpose of economic predictions was to make astrology look respectable".

I don't disagree with you ... they are all predictions and probabilities (which generally people don't understand).  Media outlets and politicians then take those predictions and probabilities and turn them into concrete statements.  Even worse happens when (as an example) the chancellor takes a report, turns it into bullet points which he talks around but then PR and Media outlets report only on the bullet points.  

Chinese whispers gone wrong.

As I said myself, I think there is very little consensus on economic forecasts, though there are general trends.

I have long since learned to treat headlines , especially in health matters, with extreme scepticism. Where a topic is of interest I do dig deeper into the published research to understand the design of any experiment and the full results. We have to acknowledge however that there is a growing issue even in the published literature in that there is a bias towards publishing research where there is a positive outcome. A paper where the conclusion of the research is that no effect was found is more difficult to get published. Hence it's becoming increasingly difficult to get a full picture across the spectrum of a subject.  

There is also (IMO) been a huge change in the "readership" of published literature which has lead to these problems.  A trained Doctor (for example) has similar experiences and so reads the unwritten message in a report aimed at them as well as the written.  Much of that unwritten implication is missed by a layman when they read technical materials.

As an aside:  It's frustrating when bad science is then used as the basis of public policy. For example I know that at my local NHS health centre diabetics are being told that they are at risk of heart disease and should eschew fats in favour of carbohydrates. I also know that my sister in law works for a company contracted by the NHS to treat diabetics. They have a good track record in treating, reversing, type 2 diabetes with diet, especially reducing carbohydrate intake. At the risk of annoying some they also make a profit from doing so whilst being cheaper that the NHS can do it themselves.

+1 ... though from a political point of view the question is WHY the NHS can't do it as cheaply.  For the same level of service the public initiate should always be cheaper as the private service has to make profits: so one has to ask where the NHS is overspending; or where the private service is cutting costs.

(But thats off topic for a Europe thread)

Diesel cars anyone?

A classic example of taking incomplete facts and using them for policy.  Though perhaps in the example of diesel cars whats important to learn is that you can't make policy for one part of the transport system without considering the transport system as a whole.  The ideal would be for cities to become virtually car free; but that would take political will to fight against the base instincts of the people.  A city wide transport policy also would take more than a single "term" to achieve ... and the intermediate points would likely cause people to turn against the policy.  For example turning inner London into a emissions free zone ... could it be done?  Yes I think it could be done.  But there would be huge resistance to it that it would take all the main candidates in an election agreeing to the policy; it would take a new kind of democracy to ensure such whole scale changes were possible.

(But thats also off topic)

andarkian posted:

MDS posted:

andarkian posted:

An unelected Council of Ministers pouring endless diktats down on us little people far removed from Brussels is a good starting point. 

I've seen this phrase used many times, often by the right-wing Press.  The Council of Ministers is made up of ministers from each of the 28 member states, each of which operates a democracy (a condition for membership of the EU).  So the while not expressly elected to be part of the Council of Ministers, all them will have been elected in their respective member states.  In other words, if such a criticism can be levelled at the Council of Ministers it can also be levelled at HMG. For example, nobody elected Boris J to be Foreign Secretary, but he was elected as an MP. 

Boris J per se cannot create laws that are imposed on us or any other foreign government. I was well aware that the Ministers were appointed by the individual member states.

The Council of Ministers can't impose laws either in most cases.  They have to be voted on by the European Parliament.

There is the Special Legislative Procedure but thats about foreign policy more than domestic laws.  Thats the kind of thing that Boris Johnson and the government (rather than Parliament) would decide in the UK too!  And in the Special Legislative Procedure the European Parliament still have a veto.

andarkian posted:

Every day, in every way, I look out of the window and the climate changes, sometimes quite dramatically. Of course, the Romans grew grapes oop North for a while and people skated and had bonfires on the Thames during the 16th century. My back garden is full of huge Sarson stones as an end point for the last ice age. Yep, the climate certainly changes.

Now, you interrupted me considering all the great economists of our age, such as Vince the Cable who worked for Shell and Alex Salmond who scarily enough worked for RBS as an economist. Ed Davey has proven to be both an economics and climate change clown, I will continue my research....

The climate doesn't noticeably change during the period of a day. What you are referring to is the weather

Eloise,

We could probably go round in circles on the counterfactual ad nauseum and of course there is always scope for misinterpretation, especially in such hastily composed posts.  Let me attempt to summarise:

The counterfactual does work both ways.

1) You can't prove that an action that was taken resulted in a particular outcome. That outcome may have occurred even if the action hadn't happened.

2) You can't prove that an action that wasn't taken would have, or have not caused a particular outcome. 

You cannot prove that the action of joining the EU has resulted in UK economy growing faster than it would have done had we not joined.

You cannot prove that QE isn't actually more damaging in the long term than not doing so.

With regard the EU I'm very much in the free trade camp (with of course provisions to protect against dumping). I'm of the view that the EU is actually preventing the EEC from achieving its full economic potential (forgive my use of the EEC and EU there to crudely differentiate between the economic project and the political integration project). The non-tariff bureaucracy layered over the "free" trade is onerous, costly to business and increasing (e.g. recent VAT changes). Furthermore it is harming 3rd world countries through tariffs on their agricultural (and indeed other) produce.  

If it's selfish to want to leave an organisation that I view as corrupt, economically incompetent, unfit for the economic challenges of the 21st century, that has destroyed the economic prospects of a whole generation(s) of young people, and through it's political cack-handedness has fermented a rise in nationalism, the very opposite of it's principle raison d'etre then, yes I'm selfish. 

Regards,

Willy.

Don Atkinson posted:

andarkian posted:

Every day, in every way, I look out of the window and the climate changes, sometimes quite dramatically. Of course, the Romans grew grapes oop North for a while and people skated and had bonfires on the Thames during the 16th century. My back garden is full of huge Sarson stones as an end point for the last ice age. Yep, the climate certainly changes.

Now, you interrupted me considering all the great economists of our age, such as Vince the Cable who worked for Shell and Alex Salmond who scarily enough worked for RBS as an economist. Ed Davey has proven to be both an economics and climate change clown, I will continue my research....

The climate doesn't noticeably change during the period of a day. What you are referring to is the weather

Yawn!!!! Okay, so why do I have climate control in my cars? I guess the weather was just a little warmer in the Roman era and a little colder during the Middle Ages. 

andarkian posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

andarkian posted:

Every day, in every way, I look out of the window and the climate changes, sometimes quite dramatically. Of course, the Romans grew grapes oop North for a while and people skated and had bonfires on the Thames during the 16th century. My back garden is full of huge Sarson stones as an end point for the last ice age. Yep, the climate certainly changes.

Now, you interrupted me considering all the great economists of our age, such as Vince the Cable who worked for Shell and Alex Salmond who scarily enough worked for RBS as an economist. Ed Davey has proven to be both an economics and climate change clown, I will continue my research....

The climate doesn't noticeably change during the period of a day. What you are referring to is the weather

Yawn!!!! Okay, so why do I have climate control in my cars? I guess the weather was just a little warmer in the Roman era and a little colder during the Middle Ages. 

Because you are controlling the micro climate within your car.  The macro-climate of the earth is different from the temperature across the day.

Willy posted:

Eloise,

We could probably go round in circles on the counterfactual ad nauseum and of course there is always scope for misinterpretation, especially in such hastily composed posts.  Let me attempt to summarise:

The counterfactual does work both ways.

[...]

You cannot prove that the action of joining the EU has resulted in UK economy growing faster than it would have done had we not joined.

You cannot prove that QE isn't actually more damaging in the long term than not doing so.

I suspect we are actually agreeing more than we are disagreeing here Willy.  Especially considering (as you say) this communication is via hastily written posts.

If it's selfish to want to leave an organisation that I view as corrupt, economically incompetent, unfit for the economic challenges of the 21st century, that has destroyed the economic prospects of a whole generation(s) of young people, and through it's political cack-handedness has fermented a rise in nationalism, the very opposite of it's principle raison d'etre then, yes I'm selfish. 

I certainly respect your reasons for leaving; though I would argue that the benefits of the UK being part of the EU for both the UK and wider Europe are worth those downsides and that had the UK truly been part of the EU then they could have helped correct those failings had there been the political will to do so (given that I suspect the UK government has benefited from some of the EU's failings).  I like your subtle use of the term EEC ... and I suspect that you are correct that the EU has become neither one thing nor the other and the next decade or so will see either a shakeup of the EU or some deconstruction of it - personally I would have voted for GREATER political union (depending on the form of that greater union I am not offering carte blanche agreement) though I know that is not a common or popular opinion.

Personally my feeling is that the EU had issues; but that being part of the EU was the best thing for the UK. But those arguments failed to win support - though without rehashing 50+ pages of comment I also feel that many people (not those on this forum specifically) voted for reasons outside the purview of the EU debate - and we are leaving the EU.

Long term I agree that the UK will find its place and will prosper ... the 5% either way "economic" benefits/loss will be forgotten and the economy will find its new level ... but I think that prospect and a new stability is 5, 10 perhaps even 20 years down the line.  Leaving the EU and developing the economy outside the EU is not a quick process.  What the "New" United Kingdom looks like depends on what happens now; the approach May takes with Brussels and the "deal" she gets for the UK.  What May does to appease Scotland.  

Another "elephant in the room" is how May tackles the problems within the UK too: leaving the EU will not do much to tackle inequality within our country and with an unstable economy those issues will become more important.

We press the Trigger on Article 50 on Wednesday 29th March 2017.

Here we go, here we go, here we gooooo !!!

_{and I thought suicide was illegal !}

Don Atkinson posted:

We press the Trigger on Article 50 on Wednesday 29th March 2017.

Here we go, here we go, here we gooooo !!!

_{and I thought suicide was illegal !}

Decriminalised in 1961 Don - please keep up!!

Timmo1341 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

We press the Trigger on Article 50 on Wednesday 29th March 2017.

Here we go, here we go, here we gooooo !!!

_{and I thought suicide was illegal !}

Decriminalised in 1961 Don - please keep up!!

Assisting suicide is still illegal though :-)

Eloise posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

We press the Trigger on Article 50 on Wednesday 29th March 2017.

Here we go, here we go, here we gooooo !!!

_{and I thought suicide was illegal !}

Decriminalised in 1961 Don - please keep up!!

Assisting suicide is still illegal though :-)

Correct, but imagine the log jam in the courts when attempting to prosecute 17,410,742 voters!!

Abstract from Wikipedia...

The Suicide Act 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz 2 c 60) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It decriminalized the act of suicide in England and Wales so that those who failed in the attempt to kill themselves would no longer be prosecuted.

I think the REASON for decrimilizing is just as relevant today as it ever was................

and yes, I appreciate there is some reverse-logic in this, but somehow it still seems apt.

Along with her favourite Leopard skin shoes,

TM will be wearing state of the cart Tory-Brexit Party designer negotiation fashion for the signing 

The future of the UK will soon be fit for the knackers yard...

George F posted:

The reason why France and Germany in particular wanted to join the Steel Union as it then was, was to bind themselves so closely with France on an economic level that another European War would be unfeasible. At the time De Gaulle stood against Britain, and Churchill was particularly keen to be in from the start. I think Europe would be quite a different place, politically,  if we had not been vetoed in the early days by the French administration.

The reasons why the Eastern European countries wanted to join does vary by the individual state. In many ways Poland and Czechoslovakia [as it then was] are part of the middle European culture that Germany in particular is the centre of. 

As for the other Eastern European countries, they were on the rebound from Communistic Dictatorships [as were Poland and Czecho, of course] and they would do anything more or less to add security for their exposed position in relation to Russia. 

I find it interesting that as soon as Germany re-unified, Norway [the voters not the politicians] decided that joining would not be a good idea. Earlier Norway would have joined, but things were left too late by politicians in the EEC and in Norway. 

On the whole I suspect Poland would be somewhat dismayed in the UK votes to leave Europe, and certainly the Irish Republic is not happy either. But which ever way the vote goes, the planet will continue to revolve about its axis, and trade will continue, and it will not result in Russian invasion.

A good settlement will be found for what ever contingency.  For an example of that look at Norway. Nothing is perfect, but something closer to ideal may be found in future which ever way the vote goes.

ATB from George

According to the latest World Happiness Report of 2017,   Norway is now the happiest place in the world - which would also make it the happiest place in the entire solar system, until man has found a way to live on other planets. 

Furthermore within the top five happiest countries in the world, two other nations have only partial connections to the EU (Iceland and Switzerland) rather than complete membership status.  Could we in the UK therefore find ourselves higher up the happiness scale, alongside Norway?  We are about to find out.

The majority of the UK, according to one or two on this forum. Well, 52% of those who voted i.e. c.17m should soon be euphoric. 

It's happened...

...Theresa May has signed the Article 50 notification letter.

Eloise posted:

It's happened...

...Theresa May has signed the Article 50 notification letter.

Excellent! The UK once more helps Europe to step away from another certain disaster! Now for the Ginger Whinger in Scotland, she needs seeing off and soon. Keep up the great fight, Theresa.

andarkian posted:

Eloise posted:

It's happened...

...Theresa May has signed the Article 50 notification letter.

Excellent! The UK once more helps Europe to step away from another certain disaster! Now for the Ginger Whinger in Scotland, she needs seeing off and soon. Keep up the great fight, Theresa.

You certainly know how to win friends and influence people..............

The heartless automaton f u c k s the country. Excellent. Drinks all round. 

andarkian posted:

Eloise posted:

It's happened...

...Theresa May has signed the Article 50 notification letter.

Excellent! The UK once more helps Europe to step away from another certain disaster! Now for the Ginger Whinger in Scotland, she needs seeing off and soon. Keep up the great fight, Theresa.

I believe a certain Vladimir Putin has some experience of "seeing off" political opponents. Perhaps this is what you have in mind?

Don Atkinson posted:

andarkian posted:

Eloise posted:

It's happened...

...Theresa May has signed the Article 50 notification letter.

Excellent! The UK once more helps Europe to step away from another certain disaster! Now for the Ginger Whinger in Scotland, she needs seeing off and soon. Keep up the great fight, Theresa.

You certainly know how to win friends and influence people..............

I'll keep appending the photo 'cos I love it so much. As to making friends, I can take it or leave it. As to influencing people, one way or the other am almost certain to do that. Either way, I should apologise to Eloise for not thanking her for alerting us to the momentous moment.

In response to the original question by the OP, yes