Merged Now What?

[uke2se]

No, that's not wrong. They still didn't need a plan.



Still no evidence for your claim.



No you said it was "breaking".



It really wasn't. You said it was their job to have a plan. When I said that it wasn't, and that they had to campaign for Leave, you changed your claim to "they lied", which isn't the same thing at all. It also doesn't counter what I said.



Maybe you should quit coffee, then.



I'm only saying the former, not the latter. I have no idea what reading could lead you to think I was saying the latter. You have, also, not in any way explained why they should have a plan when the only concern was determining what people wanted: leave or remain. Sure, they _could_ have had a plan, but it wasn't required at that juncture.

Here you go again, redefining what the task of the Brexit campaign should be. Their task did not i any way involve asking the people what they wanted. That was the job of election officials. The job of the Brexit campaign was convincing the public to vote 'leave'. They did so by telling lies about what would happen post Brexit. They are now in the process of ducking responsibility.

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Here you go again, redefining what the task of the Brexit campaign should be. Their task did not i any way involve asking the people what they wanted. That was the job of election officials. The job of the Brexit campaign was convincing the public to vote 'leave'. They did so by telling lies about what would happen post Brexit. They are now in the process of ducking responsibility.

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk

Well it's pretty clear they didn't need a plan since they got what they appeared to want without one. (Putting aside whether they actually wanted what they claimed to)

Of course encouraging people to vote to leave the EU without a plan or at least some sense of what comes next was reckless in the extreme. The good news is that Bojo, Leadsom, Farage and the rest are all quite comfortably off and won't be seriously affected by any coming economic downturn. So they haven't really risked more than they could afford to lose.

Other people have you say? Well that was their fault really, wasn't it?

 

[Belz...]

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it - none were provided. It's not my fault, believe it or not.

Then I consider your claim to be falsified: you said you allowed and welcomed legitimate reasons, but somehow failed to see any for the Leave camp. There was plenty of legitimate reasons on both sides, but of course neither side wants to admit that.

 

[Belz...]

Here you go again, redefining what the task of the Brexit campaign should be. Their task did not i any way involve asking the people what they wanted. That was the job of election officials. The job of the Brexit campaign was convincing the public to vote 'leave'.

You seem to be ignoring that the original claim I was responding to was that they should have, somehow, have had a plan for leaving.

I've already agreed that the Brexit campaign's job was to campaign for Brexit. That seems obvious to me.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Then I consider your claim to be falsified: you said you allowed and welcomed legitimate reasons, but somehow failed to see any for the Leave camp. There was plenty of legitimate reasons on both sides, but of course neither side wants to admit that.

What were the legitimate reasons then for Leaving then? I've seen plenty of people claim they exist but not actually provide any. The ones I have seen I don't particularly consider legitimate are:

1. Immigration - get the foreigners out
2. Immigration - get the non-EU people in
3. Economic - it costs us money
4. Sovereignty - something something something that doesn't really make any sense

 

[Belz...]

Of course encouraging people to vote to leave the EU without a plan or at least some sense of what comes next was reckless in the extreme.

Why? "Here's what we should do X. Please vote for that option and we'll make it happen" was the campaign. It's entirely justified that they'd make the plan once they know the answer.

 

[Francesca R]

It's your job to list the remain lies if you think you can.

Are you claiming that the Remain campaign did not lie?

 

[Belz...]

What were the legitimate reasons then for Leaving then? I've seen plenty of people claim they exist but not actually provide any. The ones I have seen I don't particularly consider legitimate are:

Well of course if you're going to misrepresent the reasons, they will seem illegitimate. That's a time-honoured tradition on this forum.

1. Immigration - get the foreigners out

No, that wasn't it.

2. Immigration - get the non-EU people in

Huh?

3. Economic - it costs us money

Isn't that legitimate that something that costs you money without a perceived benefit be a reason to cease that thing?

4. Sovereignty - something something something that doesn't really make any sense

Actually it made a great deal of sense. I get the impression that you didn't actually weigh both sides of the issue before making up your mind.

 

[Francesca R]

I am wondering given that some of the indicators, deficit, commercial property, investment by businesses and household debt were already were showing signs of contraction in Q1 and Q2 (according to the Bank of England report yesterday) whether we were already moving towards a technical recession and all that has happened is that Brexit has speeded up that process due to uncertainty. It may be that we are following a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc argument.

Such developments could still be due to the Brexit referendum; my day job is portfolio manager and I was selling UK financial equity and GBP shortly after the referendum was called. Not because of an expectation of a leave vote but because of the economic and geopolitical uncertainty it created. (I'm not going to substantiate this statement suffice it to say there were reasons for the economy to suffer pre vote as well)

 

[Belz...]

Are you claiming that the Remain campaign did not lie?

I think the multiple doom-and-gloom scenarios from the Remain camp were lies, in-and-of themselves.

But it doesn't matter who lied more. That happens in all campaigns, and the people have to filter that out. What matters are the reasons on either side of the issue.

 

[Lothian]

Why? "Here's what we should do X. Please vote for that option and we'll make it happen" was the campaign. It's entirely justified that they'd make the plan once they know the answer.

Are you saying the leave campaign only ever said "Vote leave and we will leave" I am fairly sure I heard something about stopping immigration, £350 million, the NHS, free trade.... Was i dreaming?

 

[Lothian]

But it doesn't matter who lied more. That happens in all campaigns, and the people have to filter that out. What matters are the reasons on either side of the issue.

Call me old fashioned but if people have voted in mass for something on the basis of lies they were told you have to question the validity of the vote. Pointing out that the was the odd truth is not sufficient to conclude that people would have voted the same way if only presented with the truths.

 

[Francesca R]

But it doesn't matter who lied more.

Well I think that does matter.

But some seem to be claiming the remain campaign including the two top politicians in the government did not lie. I would appreciate them confirming if this is their position.

 

[ceptimus]

Both sides made misleading claims. Neither side lied outright.

The most consistent claim we hear of lying was the '£350 million per week' - but even this wasn't an outright lie - when pressed on it the Leave side always admitted that this was only a gross figure and that the net figure was about half that amount.

All through the campaign, the Remain side repeated loudly their claim that the 350 figure was wrong: the overwhelming majority of people voting Leave would have been aware of the controversy over this issue.

 

[Francesca R]

Neither side lied outright.

Disagreed, both sides did lie outright.

Which is, actually, moral equivalence.

 

[ceptimus]

Disagreed, both sides did lie outright.

Which is, actually, moral equivalence.

It depends what you mean by a lie. Both sides deliberately made misleading statements, but they were nuanced in a way that would make it difficult to prove they were 'deliberate lies' beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

In other words, they did what politicians always aspire to do.

 

[Belz...]

Are you saying the leave campaign only ever said "Vote leave and we will leave" I am fairly sure I heard something about stopping immigration, £350 million, the NHS, free trade.... Was i dreaming?

Are you trying to have a conversation? It sure doesn't seem like it. Otherwise you might have responded to my post.

Call me old fashioned but if people have voted in mass for something on the basis of lies they were told you have to question the validity of the vote.

How is that "old fashioned"? You are talking about potentially invalidating the vast majority of presidential elections on the basis that you think the voters were fooled. Not only is that ridiculous, it's pretty much impossible. Let people vote for whatever reason they wish, and instead work to inform them prior to the vote rather than complain that they voted "wrong".

 

[MCel58]

Well I think that does matter.

But some seem to be claiming the remain campaign including the two top politicians in the government did not lie. I would appreciate them confirming if this is their position.

I suppose the question is did people actually lie or did they just exaggerate the truth.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why? "Here's what we should do X. Please vote for that option and we'll make it happen" was the campaign. It's entirely justified that they'd make the plan once they know the answer.

Because 'here's what we should do' actually requires some kind of 'what we should do'. Voting to leave the EU without actually thinking about what the alternative might be is reckless.

Maybe you think that by plan we mean 'detailed point by point action list'? What I mean is an actual idea of what they want to achieve. Nobody seems quite clear what they actually voted for now.

Well of course if you're going to misrepresent the reasons, they will seem illegitimate. That's a time-honoured tradition on this forum.[.quote]

Well you will note that I didn't misrepresent the reasons. I asked for them. I note that you didn't give them.

No, that wasn't it.

Well it was it for some people.

Huh?

Hmm, you never heard that one?

Isn't that legitimate that something that costs you money without a perceived benefit be a reason to cease that thing?

Given that we've already wiped the saving out for the next 25 years or so just in terms of the impact of the vote without even considering the impact of being outside the EU no it wasn't really legitimate.

Actually it made a great deal of sense. I get the impression that you didn't actually weigh both sides of the issue before making up your mind.

Well again you seem to be arguing in favour of legitimate arguments that haven't been made and that you haven't provided. The ones that I saw made no sense. And the people who gave them couldn't actually explain what they meant or what benefit they expected. Moreover the people who gave them generally gave them after they made one of the previous ones which suggested to me they were just an attempt to legitimise those views.

Legitimate reasons can be supported by evidence and stand up to scrutiny and counterarguments. I'm waiting to hear the legitimate answers in favour of leaving. I'm all ears.

 

[Rat]

I suppose the question is did people actually lie or did they just exaggerate the truth.

Remain said we would be poorer, and we are (but not perhaps by X per household). Leave said we would be richer, and we are not. I realize it's too early to say that these are lasting effects, of course.