Should We Leave the EU?

[pemma]

If all countries decide to put their own interests aside and concentrate on the greater good, then everybody wins.

Do you really expect other country's politicians will vote for the greater good when the UK sends so many UKIP MEPs (including Farage) to Brussels and elect so many Conservative MPs in Westminster?

 

[Johnuk123]

Going to be some serious research going on at the polling firms when to a man they're literally miles and miles out. Looks like this result is going to show that polls are a waste of time.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Going to be some serious research going on at the polling firms when to a man they're literally miles and miles out.

Yet Johnuk123 of RailUKForums will, of course, get it right to the second decimal place.

 

[Senex]

But I don't think they should have the Strasbourg shuffle. The point I'm making is that assuming we are special, and going in with an adversarial attitude, both misses the point of the EU and also damages it. Neither power nor wealth are zero-sum, which has been the key mistaken assumption of many in the Brexit camp.

Also, this idea that Britain is in a particularly strong position with regards to the rest of the EU is simply not true - unless you think we'd also be in a strong position compared to the US, which is of a similar size.

But of course we are different and special. We saved Europe from itself twice in the twentieth century, we won the war, we have a Special Relationship with the USA, and we have the glory of the Commonwealth -- or so the people who kept us out of the EEC in its beginnings, who have moaned about the EEC/EU and sat sniping on the sidelines ever since, and whose successors are the Brexiteers of today would have us believe.

Could it all have been different? Much of the British problem seems to come down to Brussels and its strong centralising tendencies (even though within the United Kingdom much the same tendencies have been observable with Westminster for many years). That surely comes from the fact that when it was all created, French influence was paramount. Of the Six, Germany and France were the two major players. Although the German economy was powering ahead, that country had still not recovered any real national self-assurance after the war, and it was France that was really able to give the shape and identity to the new EEC on French lines. At that time that was a very centralist way of doing things indeed, where one of the jokes was that at any time of the day the Minister of Education in Paris would know exactly what every French schoolchild was doing throughout the country. Had we chosen to be involved from the start, we could have argued the case for something different and arguably got something much more to British tastes. But we held aloof, and then had to go begging to join the club some years later, and when one joins a club, one accepts the rules. One does not make one's own. And right from the very start, we've protested and complained about those rules. Some of them are daft, France is very much privileged, and the Strasbourg shuffle is one of the most absurb things to happen in European politics today. But how much did we bring on ourselves by insisting that we were always "special" and keeping ourselves at arm's length at a crucial time?

 

[Gutfright]

Yet it's not just a PD, it's an iterative PD because it's ongoing through time. Such problems have been solved, through reciprocity. There's an interesting book on these very problems by Axelrod, that explains that punishing non-cooperators once (immediately after previous defections) in iterative PDs and cooperating if they cooperate leads to the greatest cooperation overall. People instinctively know this, and world leaders certainly do (with few exceptions, like the near-permanent embargo on Cuba).

In other words, throwing our hands in the air and going "it's a prisoner's dilemma - we can't do anything!" doesn't mean that the problem is insoluble. We can and must cooperate with Europe, and they know that too.

Your logic is completely self-defeating, because it applies equally to the development of societies - clearly it didn't stop people though. Assuming that the member states of the EU are out to screw each other over at the expense of others is exactly what the EU is designed to stop, and is exactly what I meant when I said that you were missing the point of the EU. Every leader knows that, in cooperation, the result is greater than the sum of its parts: it's not rational at all to defect from that, because of the possibility of reciprocated punishment in the future, which will happen for the express purpose of ensuring mutual cooperation and therefore mutual prosperity.

It's a lovely theory. It sounds great.

So in what year do you expect France to give up the Strasbourg shuffle? It's going to happen any day now, right?

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's a lovely theory. It sounds great.

So in what year do you expect France to give up the Strasbourg shuffle? It's going to happen any day now, right?

It's exactly what happens every day, and it's how any cooperation at all is possible.

I'm sorry that your trump card of the PD didn't actually stand up to scrutiny, but there's no need to be bitter.

 

[Gutfright]

It's exactly what happens every day, and it's how any cooperation at all is possible.

I'm sorry that your trump card of the PD didn't actually stand up to scrutiny, but there's no need to be bitter.

So, the Strasbourg shuffle will be abolished by ...August? ...Early next year? ...2018?

If your theory doesn't fit the evidence, abandon the theory.

 

[Geezertronic]

I'm sorry that your trump card of the PD didn't actually stand up to scrutiny, but there's no need to be bitter.

They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and since you have done quite a bit of it recently, what does that say about you?

 

[TheKnightWho]

So, the Strasbourg shuffle will be abolished by ...August? ...Early next year? ...2018?

If your theory doesn't fit the evidence, abandon the theory.

What on earth are you on about? Reciprocity theory should be abandoned because the French won't abandon the Strasbourg shuffle? Could you explain how that remotely follows?

The theory is well backed-up by considerable empirical evidence as being the best strategy for getting mutual cooperation. You've cherrypicked a single, irrelevant example and are holding it high without even explaining how it has anything to do with it.

This smacks of desperation. Especially given you were previously espousing the virtues of PD theory, claiming how it proves the EU simply cannot work - even though the fact that society exists is evidence to the contrary. Confirmation bias in the extreme.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and since you have done quite a bit of it recently, what does that say about you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ople-brighter-and-more-creative-10416281.html

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Going to be some serious research going on at the polling firms when to a man they're literally miles and miles out. Looks like this result is going to show that polls are a waste of time.

Doesn't look good for them after the polling firms fiasco over the result of the last General Election when the senior analysts said that lessons had been learnt which would make future matters far more accurate...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yet Johnuk123 of RailUKForums will, of course, get it right to the second decimal place.

I think "second decimal place" is not the error made by these polling organisations but of a far more substantial figure.

 

[Gutfright]

What on earth are you on about? Reciprocity theory should be abandoned because the French won't abandon the Strasbourg shuffle? Could you explain how that remotely follows?

The theory is well backed-up by considerable empirical evidence as being the best strategy for getting mutual cooperation. You've cherrypicked a single, irrelevant example and are holding it high without even explaining how it has anything to do with it.

This smacks of desperation. Especially given you were previously espousing the virtues of PD theory, claiming how it proves the EU simply cannot work - even though the fact that society exists is evidence to the contrary. Confirmation bias in the extreme.

In theory France shouldn't act like a selfish asshole, and it shouldn't benefit from it.

In reality France has acted like a selfish asshole, and it has benefited. The Strasbourg shuffle is a clear example of this.

So when will the system correct itself? When will France allow the Strasbourg shuffle to be abandoned?

 

[TheKnightWho]

In theory France shouldn't act like a selfish asshole, and it shouldn't benefit from it.

In reality France has acted like a selfish asshole, and it has benefited. The Strasbourg shuffle is a clear example of this.

So when will the system correct itself? When will France allow the Strasbourg shuffle to be abandoned?

The Strasbourg shuffle exists and has existed for decades. How would abolishing it fit into reciprocity theory? It was there before we even signed up - I have no idea how it has any relation to the UK at all.

It also has absolutely no bearing on the fact that reciprocity theory is about what the best strategy is in the game for getting the best overall result for everyone - we have no idea what concessions were given by France in response; unless you think France rocked up and the other 5 just said "sure, yeah, no problem!" The entire point is that it is a good strategy for stopping others behaving like selfish assholes.

This is the problem - you're scraping for anything you can get in response to stuff that is empirically backed, whilst abandoning the very theory you previously supported because it turns out not to support your preconceived view. That is neither scientific, nor does it make you look like you're looking at these theories in good faith: a single "counterexample" (which isn't a counterexample at all) in a sociological theory does not disprove the edifice it's built upon. That you're so willing to dismiss it just shows you're seeking confirmation bias.

Particularly worrying is when you talk about the system "correcting itself": I'm not sure how that has anything at all to do with what I've been saying, and I think you might well be imagining a strawman here.

 

[Gutfright]

My argument hasn't changed one iota. It has always been "France has benefited from being a selfish asshole, so why can't we?"

Are you saying that in insisting on the Strasbourg shuffle France hasn't been selfish? Or hasn't benefited?

Leave has lost the referendum. We're staying in the EU. That doesn't mean that Britain should not seek every advantage we can get within the EU.

 

[miami]

Doesn't look good for them after the polling firms fiasco over the result of the last General Election when the senior analysts said that lessons had been learnt which would make future matters far more accurate...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think "second decimal place" is not the error made by these polling organisations but of a far more substantial figure.

It was about 3 percentage points.

Of course polling for referendums is not something there's a lot of experience with

BBC reckon that the last polls were 45/45/10, so any result from a 45% to 55% would presumably be bang on.

 

[TheKnightWho]

My argument hasn't changed one iota. It has always been "France has benefited from being a selfish asshole, so why can't we?"

Are you saying that in insisting on the Strasbourg shuffle France hasn't been selfish? Or hasn't benefited?

Leave has lost the referendum. We're staying in the EU. That doesn't mean that Britain should not seek every advantage we can get within the EU.

Can you show that they gave nothing in return?

And no, it does not mean that we should be "selfish assholes". If France wasn't punished for non-cooperation for the other members, that reciprocity theory wasn't followed; alternatively, France gave up some other concession in return. Understand the theory before you dismiss it.

And to claim your argument hasn't changed is absurd - you can't take the PD as proof you're right, as you did before, and then dismiss it because when analysed properly it doesn't fit your view. That's confirmation bias.

 

[deltic]

Going to be some serious research going on at the polling firms when to a man they're literally miles and miles out. Looks like this result is going to show that polls are a waste of time.

why what do you thing the result will be?

I see the £:$ exchange rate hasnt changed much today so the private hedge fund polling has not reported yet or it is looking like remain.

 

[Gutfright]

Can you show that they gave nothing in return?

And no, it does not mean that we should be "selfish assholes". If France wasn't punished for non-cooperation for the other members, that reciprocity theory wasn't followed; alternatively, France gave up some other concession in return. Understand the theory before you dismiss it.

And to claim your argument hasn't changed is absurd - you can't take the PD as proof you're right, as you did before, and then dismiss it because when analysed properly it doesn't fit your view. That's confirmation bias.

It's a bit rich of someone who has tried to dismiss a real-world example of a country not acting as your theory suggests they should as "irrelevant" to accuse anyone else of confirmation bias.

In the real world, sometimes people (and nations) act like selfish assholes, and sometimes they benefit from it.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Leave has lost the referendum. We're staying in the EU. That doesn't mean that Britain should not seek every advantage we can get within the EU.

I'm not so sure how you can be so certain. I'm think the result is going to be very close.

 

[Gutfright]

I'm not so sure how you can be so certain. I'm think the result is going to be very close.

Those 10% of people who are undecided are mostly going to choose the devil they know.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's a bit rich of someone who has tried to dismiss a real-world example of a country not acting as your theory suggests they should as "irrelevant" to accuse anyone else of confirmation bias.

In the real world, sometimes people (and nations) act like selfish assholes, and sometimes they benefit from it.

The very issue is the response to the person who defects, not the defection itself. So no, I'm not dismissing anything that isn't irrelevant, because the very fact you use something that doesn't fit the PD model as your example says a lot.

If it's a PD as you say, then reciprocity can circumvent the issues of that.

 

[Gutfright]

The very issue is the response to the person who defects, not the defection itself. So no, I'm not dismissing anything that isn't irrelevant, because the very fact you use something that doesn't fit the PD model as your example says a lot.

If it's a PD as you say, then reciprocity can circumvent the issues of that.

The prisoners dilemma means everybody co-operating for the greater good. Because France didn't work for the greater good that proves it can't be an example of the prisoners dilemma.

Surely you can see that is circular reasoning?

 

[TheKnightWho]

The prisoners dilemma means everybody co-operating for the greater good. Because France didn't work for the greater good that proves it can't be an example of the prisoners dilemma.

Surely you can see that is circular reasoning?

No, that isn't the logic at all. It's a best strategy - it isn't a guarantee that people will follow it.

It also shows that a suitable punishment wasn't used for defecting, that other concessions were given by France that aren't mentioned.

In essence, your single example proves nothing, and it certainly has no bearing on whether or not the Strasbourg shuffle will continue, as you seemed to think.

 

[Gutfright]

The point about the Strasbourg shuffle is that France took the selfish option. They decided to rat on the other prisoner.

And it worked. They got the best-case scenario, the rest of Europe got the worst.

That can happen in the prisoners dilemma.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The point about the Strasbourg shuffle is that France took the selfish option. They decided to rat on the other prisoner.

And it worked. They got the best-case scenario, the rest of Europe got the worst.

That can happen in the prisoners dilemma.

And if the other countries didn't respond adequately, that is their fault. That doesn't make cooperation impossible, as you seem to be concluding.

Someone not taking the best strategy does not mean that it is not good to take the best strategy. You're extrapolating from one thing to all things, and concluding a complete non sequitur.

Should I conclude from one person getting away with breaking the law that the law is pointless? Of course not.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The betting has dramatically moved towards a Remain vote. Until yesterday, Remain was about 1/3 or 1/4, compared to about 1/5 a few months ago, but now we are looking at 1/8 or 1/9.

Bookies are not known for their giving of good odds on short-term favourites. That is why they have all that spare capital to spend on their numerous television advertisements on a varied range of methods to extract easy money from the pockets of what seems to be an ever willing and never ending source of customers (they are not called passengers in betting shops..) with online betting being what seems like a norm these days.

 

[Gutfright]

That doesn't make cooperation impossible, as you seem to be concluding.

When did I ever say that, or anything remotely like that?

Should I conclude from one person getting away with breaking the law that the law is pointless? Of course not.

A more relevant question would be "Should you look at one person getting away with breaking the law, and conclude maybe it would be advantageous for you too to break the law?"

 

[TheKnightWho]

When did I ever say that, or anything remotely like that?



A more relevant question would be "Should you look at one person getting away with breaking the law, and conclude maybe it would be advantageous for you too to break the law?"

And why is it that we don't descend into anarchy?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Shhh...we'll be getting all those who currently live in the Sawf East coming up, buying our cheap housing, taking over our hospitals and taking all our jobs/women....
Vote Chexit!!

*Looks at exchange markets* The Lanky's fallen three points against Stirling on the mere thought!

Cheap housing....in my part of Cheshire East. I reckon I could let Jackson-Stops and Staff sell ALL of our six outhouses for a seven-figure price each on "Escape to the Country"....

The "Lanky" may have fallen today against Sterling, but the Cheshire East Triple Unite is over ten points to the good according to my broker who is in the Bahamas negotiating some offshore currency deals on my behalf...

 

[Gutfright]

And why is it that we don't descend into anarchy?

Why do you feel that question is relevant?

Are you going to use the fact that society hasn't descended into anarchy to try to 'prove' that criminals/ selfish people never advantage from their crime/ selfishness?

Because sometimes they do.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why do you feel that question is relevant?

Are you going to use the fact that society hasn't descended into anarchy to try to 'prove' that criminals/ selfish people never advantage from their crime/ selfishness?

Because sometimes they do.

Because you literally said we should discard reciprocity theory. You're the only one making extreme claims here.

This is the problem with sophistry: it might sound nice to play the devil's advocate over cooperation, but the empirical evidence is stacked so heavily against you that it leads to absurd conclusions.