Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Brexit: The Movie



NooBHA

Well-known member
Jan 13, 2015
8,584
On your first point, what you are talking about here is protectionism. Protectionism is generally accepted as being very bad economics. As you point out, ordinary people are forced to pay more money for goods and services, and often inferior goods and services. This negatively impacts on the consumer. But let's say for a second that while it negatively impacts the consumer (and the poor consumer most of all), it also helps the producer. But does it really? The producer when faced with a competitive market is forced to do things differently. Either improve it's product, or find another way of being productive. This is how you achieve a dynamic, flexible and inventive enconomy. If a producer can simply take a commissioner out for a champagne dinner and lobby for protectionist policies then they avoid the incentive to improve. Did you see in the film the mountains of food being destroyed in order to keep prices high to protect the European producer? The waste becomes two-fold, first you have destroyed perfectly good produce which could have gone to the consumer and saved them money, second, you have denied the producer the incentive and opportunity to use their energy to create something else or something better.

You mention saving those producers jobs, and that is quite visible. But consider the invisible, those people who never get a job which they may otherwise have got because a business is having to import a product at a higher price than they would otherwise have had too. That business has higher costs, meaning they can employ less people. But because those jobs are never created in the first place you only see the existing jobs which might be lost without protectionism, you miss those jobs which can never be created because of it.

Taking again the destruction of vast amounts of food, you can argue that this is benificial to the economy, because now more food must be produced, employing people and generating wealth. But it's a fallacy (similar to what's called the broken window fallacy) because now you have destroyed a product which could have otherwise been used, and you have wasted the resources needed to remake the product, which could have been used productively to create something additional to the products which you destroyed. So you end up losing twice.

The other part of your point, protecting the elderly, minorities, employees etc, well two points on that. First your point is only valid if you believe that we cannot protect those things ourselves. Second, assuming that you do believe that we would not protect those things ourselves, you would have to also believe that the EU will protect them forever. I think most people believe those things should be protected, for sure. So what will best protect them? In a system of accountability you can always rely on the prevailing attitudes of the people to decide. In an unaccountable system you can always rely on the prevailing attitudes of the powerful to decide. So the question is, who do you trust to protect these important things. Who do you trust to, in the long term, have the interests of minorities, women, workers at heart? The people, or the powerful? What the EU gives the EU can take away. Consider a time in which the attitudes of the EU Commission are different, consider a time in which the EU Commission decides to weaken those rights. There will be no recourse. Change cannot be effected. Consider the idea (which you seem to hold) that our democracy might decide to weaken those riights. There is recourse. Change can be effected.

On your last point, again, you would have to believe that we would not have standards for products without the EU. Explosive toothpaste would hit the shelves if we didn't have rules created by the EU? It really isn't the case. You also have to bear in mind that the majority of regulations created by the EU are not created with the welbeing of the consumer in mind, otherwise we would not have more expensive products chosen at the expense of cheaper ones which must be destroyed. Regulations are made with the interests of lobbyists in mind. Big business loves EU regulation because their armies of lawyers and compliance departments are able to handle the regulations, which largely they helped to construct, while a small business struggles to comply. Again, as with other forms of protectionism, the aim here is not to protect the consumer, it is to protect the producer, in this case from competition. Competition which, if embraced rather than feared, would lead to better goods and lower prices. Those things which actually benefit consumers, particularly the poorest consumers.

Too vast a response to go over in detail. Some of what you say, I agree with and some I would contradict but it would then get into a back and forth discussion where we would just have to agree to disagree. I am not a politician so don't want to debate forever on this subject.

The thread was actually about the programme and all I wanted to get across was that it was not a balanced programme. It merely hammered out negativities and that is not balanced
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,013
Have you watched the film?

I don't think there is a single thing said in the film which could or would be argued against. That's why I think people should watch it.

I am watching it now and disagree. I think they have cherry picked the industries that have been adversely affected. A good example is how they jump from steele production to sugar production. The best they can manage when explaining how the EU works is that no one can understand it, this is of course bollocks as a bit of researching gives you a decent enough understanding of the process.

Don't get me wrong the film makes some good points but lets make no bones about it, it is a piece of biased propaganda and should be viewed as such.

The positive of this referendum is the realisation of people that the information we are presented with is flawed beyond belief (from both sides). People have been given the task of voting on a hugely important decision that will affect the future of their country and not given the necessary information to make a decent decision. The model of two opposing ideals battling out for one's vote is fundamentally flawed as their great propaganda machines churn up information to such an extent that the truth is blurred in the muddied waters.

In short politics is ****ed and information is confused and as the Brexit movie suggests about the EU this is how they want it.
 




BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,013
I like the look of the Swiss model though, they seem to have things sorted.

I can't say that I would expect that a go it alone UK would follow that model though.

The biggest problem is that leaving the EU would leave the country exposed to the 'leadership' of the Tories or Labour Neo Conservative bullshit.
 






dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
I like the look of the Swiss model though, they seem to have things sorted.

I can't say that I would expect that a go it alone UK would follow that model though.

The biggest problem is that leaving the EU would leave the country exposed to the 'leadership' of the Tories or Labour Neo Conservative bullshit.

At least we (and in future our children and their children) can kick the Uk Gov out when we need to. Try kicking out the EU Commission.
 




BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,013
At least we (and in future our children and their children) can kick the Uk Gov out when we need to. Try kicking out the EU Commission.

True enough, although it is all academic unless you actually do, and you need to replace them with something different.
 




osgood

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2011
1,508
brighton
on your first point, what you are talking about here is protectionism. Protectionism is generally accepted as being very bad economics. As you point out, ordinary people are forced to pay more money for goods and services, and often inferior goods and services. This negatively impacts on the consumer. But let's say for a second that while it negatively impacts the consumer (and the poor consumer most of all), it also helps the producer. But does it really? The producer when faced with a competitive market is forced to do things differently. Either improve it's product, or find another way of being productive. This is how you achieve a dynamic, flexible and inventive enconomy. If a producer can simply take a commissioner out for a champagne dinner and lobby for protectionist policies then they avoid the incentive to improve. Did you see in the film the mountains of food being destroyed in order to keep prices high to protect the european producer? The waste becomes two-fold, first you have destroyed perfectly good produce which could have gone to the consumer and saved them money, second, you have denied the producer the incentive and opportunity to use their energy to create something else or something better.

You mention saving those producers jobs, and that is quite visible. But consider the invisible, those people who never get a job which they may otherwise have got because a business is having to import a product at a higher price than they would otherwise have had too. That business has higher costs, meaning they can employ less people. But because those jobs are never created in the first place you only see the existing jobs which might be lost without protectionism, you miss those jobs which can never be created because of it.

Taking again the destruction of vast amounts of food, you can argue that this is benificial to the economy, because now more food must be produced, employing people and generating wealth. But it's a fallacy (similar to what's called the broken window fallacy) because now you have destroyed a product which could have otherwise been used, and you have wasted the resources needed to remake the product, which could have been used productively to create something additional to the products which you destroyed. So you end up losing twice.

The other part of your point, protecting the elderly, minorities, employees etc, well two points on that. First your point is only valid if you believe that we cannot protect those things ourselves. Second, assuming that you do believe that we would not protect those things ourselves, you would have to also believe that the eu will protect them forever. I think most people believe those things should be protected, for sure. So what will best protect them? In a system of accountability you can always rely on the prevailing attitudes of the people to decide. In an unaccountable system you can always rely on the prevailing attitudes of the powerful to decide. So the question is, who do you trust to protect these important things. Who do you trust to, in the long term, have the interests of minorities, women, workers at heart? The people, or the powerful? What the eu gives the eu can take away. Consider a time in which the attitudes of the eu commission are different, consider a time in which the eu commission decides to weaken those rights. There will be no recourse. Change cannot be effected. Consider the idea (which you seem to hold) that our democracy might decide to weaken those riights. There is recourse. Change can be effected.

On your last point, again, you would have to believe that we would not have standards for products without the eu. Explosive toothpaste would hit the shelves if we didn't have rules created by the eu? It really isn't the case. You also have to bear in mind that the majority of regulations created by the eu are not created with the welbeing of the consumer in mind, otherwise we would not have more expensive products chosen at the expense of cheaper ones which must be destroyed. Regulations are made with the interests of producers (or rather lobbyists) in mind. Big business loves eu regulation because their armies of lawyers and compliance departments are able to handle the regulations, which largely they helped to construct, while a small business struggles to comply. Again, as with other forms of protectionism, the aim here is not to protect the consumer, it is to protect the producer, in this case from competition. Competition which, if embraced rather than feared, would lead to better goods and lower prices. Those things which actually benefit consumers, particularly the poorest consumers.

game ,set and match mr dingodan !
 




graz126

New member
Oct 17, 2003
4,146
doncaster
Interesting film. And for me, one of the most interesting things about it is the fact that in presenting its case for Brexit, not ONCE is the matter of immigration brought up. The arguments are built entirely around economic, trade and bureaucratic factors that affect us all by shackling ourselves to the unelected, unaccountable, cumbersome cartel that is the EU.

Immigration will likely be the single biggest factor driving most people to vote for Brexit. Yet there are so many factors outside of that one issue which are equally worthy of scrutiny, so it was refreshing to see a programme focussing on those other issues for once.

i watched the film a few weeks back. am out and has nothing to do with immigration for me. Many other reasons but 1 is i hate seeing all these bureaucrats leeching from us. weather it be expenses or having their own shopping centre in Brussels. the film is obviously bias but its meant to be. we don't elect the guys at the top of the eu, yet we are a democratic society. in truth this makes us run under a dictatorship not a democracy. personally don't think being out will make such a massive difference to immigration anyway only have to take a look at all the Chinese, Japanese, American, Pakistani, indian,. Indonesian (many other countries not in Europe) studying in our universities. Vote not for freedom to roam but for freedom to make a choice.
 




Dorset Seagull

Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
Is there anything in there you would qualify as political spin? I genuinely couldn't see anything like that myself.

Is there anything in there you would qualify as subjective, rather than objective? Again, same.

I'm open to the suggestion that there was some spin or some subjectivity in there, but I when watch it I genuinely can't think of any examples, and so far in this discussion none have been specifically identified.

Although I am currently in the out camp there was plenty of spin in that movie. It was suggested that the European Commission was making the laws but that is not the case at all as there has to be agreement from both the other parliaments and the commission only propose the laws and don't vote on them. Also the commission is made up from a delegate from each EU country so everybody is represented so hardly a random group of power hungry individuals

It was mentioned that 10000 people working in Brussels at the EU earnt more than our PM. We're these the same people that had a £250k budget to staff their work and was that figure included in what they earn?

The movie raises some serious questions but I think you need to look deeper to see how genuine many of the claims are as believing sound bites from a lot of talking heads is not the way to get to the truth
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here