-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
But you are saying:
"...but it may be a very long run - ten years or more."
That's a generation plus that you are happy to sacrifice.
We already know we would be doing OK in the EU during that time.
That is a clear cut cost you are willing to make in the knowledge that it may not actually improve things.
Part of my job is risk mitigation. Hence this is utterly bonkers.
What evidence that staying in will result in better outcomes again?
Note: evidence ≠ forecasts.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
I'm guessing anything not from experts...so pull something from your arse.
Except that in real world you can't assume that the "best outcome" is attainable and just throw your entire weight behind whatever harebrained scheme to get it irrespective of how realistic it is.
So there's nothing that can disprove, or prove for that matter, the economic gain or loss from leaving the EU?
Hint: there's a good reason for why everyone uses economic forecasts to make decisions, maybe you could try and figure out why that is?
Last edited:
A Welsh UKIP politician made a great suggestion : having Ireland using EU fundings to pay for the M4 motorway between London and South Wales because a substantial part of Irish exports are dispatched through this motorway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAmhI0YPbE&feature=youtu.be
Typically a wrong "good idea" as this would also allow all EU Member States to claim UK fundings for the EU roads are they are used for UK exports for the Continent...
Typically a wrong "good idea" as this would also allow all EU Member States to claim UK fundings for the EU roads are they are used for UK exports for the Continent...
We need to wait and see.
So far, some of the forecasts of what would happen immediately following the referendum (falling pound) have proved right and some others (less jobs, shrinking economy, firms leaving the UK) have proved wrong.
It's early days though - we still don't know when we'll actually leave, and we don't know whether we'll leave completely or remain partly in.
By the time that there actually is evidence, people will be able to argue that what happened wasn't the result of Brexit and was due to other influences - and they'll be right, to a certain degree.
Once whatever Brexit finally happens has happened and there's been a period of a few years to assess things there may or may not be a consensus that it was a good thing to do, or a stupid thing to do. Either way, it will be too late to change things by then, unless someone has invented a time machine in the interim (and if they do, I'm sure that will have bigger consequences than Brexit!
).It's like arguing now that we'd be better or worse off than we are if man had never landed on the moon: most people would agree that the moon landing thing was a net benefit (I'm in that camp) - but some will say that we'd be better off if we'd spent the moonshot money on something different.
It's impossible to say really as there are so many other things that influence outcomes - people will always argue about what the most important influences were.
I'm sure the UKIP politician meant: the Irish will pay for the motorway but the UK won't pay for anything in return. Like freedom of trade and movement. We want the first, not the second; so that's the way things have to be. There's no point in telling these people; the Empire is dead, and it doesn't work like that any more.
I'd like to apologise on behalf of Wales for David Rowlands - perhaps he had one too many head injuries in his (no doubt) rugby playing youth
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
We need to wait and see.
So far, some of the forecasts of what would happen immediately following the referendum (falling pound) have proved right and some others (less jobs, shrinking economy, firms leaving the UK) have proved wrong.
It's early days though - we still don't know when we'll actually leave, and we don't know whether we'll leave completely or remain partly in.
By the time that there actually is evidence, people will be able to argue that what happened wasn't the result of Brexit and was due to other influences - and they'll be right, to a certain degree.
Once whatever Brexit finally happens has happened and there's been a period of a few years to assess things there may or may not be a consensus that it was a good thing to do, or a stupid thing to do. Either way, it will be too late to change things by then, unless someone has invented a time machine in the interim (and if they do, I'm sure that will have bigger consequences than Brexit!
It's like arguing now that we'd be better or worse off than we are if man had never landed on the moon: most people would agree that the moon landing thing was a net benefit (I'm in that camp) - but some will say that we'd be better off if we'd spent the moonshot money on something different.
It's impossible to say really as there are so many other things that influence outcomes - people will always argue about what the most important influences were.
What the above says to me is that you can't actually posit any evidence that would lead you to believe that staying in gives better outcomes than exiting. That alone weakens your position to the point of fundamentalism.
Which is consistent with ceptimus' previous comment that (s)he couldn't think of a set of circumstances in which something would come up which should make Brexit impossible.
No. What I'm saying is an obvious truth - that no one can post evidence about future events - only predictions and opinions.
Now some things we can be very confident about: if I jump off this cliff I will likely die. Other things not so confident: if I set out on my drive now I should reach my destination in two hours.
When it comes to Brexit, it's so complicated that no one really knows. The bulk of opinions from experts is that it will be a bad thing, but there are also a few experts who think it might be good. We won't really know until we try it - and as I already pointed out, we won't really know even after we've tried it as there will be other unrelated events that will influence the results too.
We'll probably be reasonably confident as to whether Brexit was a good thing a few years after it happens (assuming it's allowed to happen). Perhaps you'll visit this thread again in 2023, if the thread is still around, and then you can give an opinion based on reality, rather than mere speculation.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
Well, I'd normally approach an expert in the subject. Or, rather, a large number of them and gather a consensus.
How would you do it?
And if you throw out all the trade, economic treaties, ties and associated business practices that have been built up over the past 40 years, that are enmeshed into our economy, we will flush said economy down the crapper.
We know that's going to happen. The government knows that's going to happen. That's why they're all over the bloody place.
What we don't know is whether we will come out of it on the other side in any decent shape.
So, based on the fact (and it is, you have to be completely blinkered to believe otherwise) that we're screwed if we go ahead and leave-leave-leave then, by your criteria, we shouldn't do such a daft thing.
This is jumping off a cliff...you just choose to believe it isn't because you have your eyes closed.
ETA: Indeed, you're jumping off the cliff in the hopes that it'll only result in a few broken bones and you'll be able to walk again in 10 years or so...and it might cure you're back problem.
Last edited:
That's a good approach for engineering projects. Say you're designing a bridge then you can ask a group of engineering experts whether the bridge will likely stand up or collapse and they'll usually be in broad agreement with each other.
With political or economic projects it doesn't work so well. The experts in political and economic predictions have very bad records on accuracy and provide diverse and conflicting predictions of outcomes. Every swing of the stock market is predicted by some economist or other - unfortunately it tends to be a different economist each time; economists that made successful predictions in the past are no more likely to be right than the ones that were woefully wrong last time.
So the predictions of experts in the economic and political realm are the best predictions we have - but history shows us that the predictions are nevertheless likely to be wrong.
Worse, the people who are granted 'expert' status by the establishment are not those people with the best track record of past predictions - rather they tend to be establishment figures themselves who agree with the status quo enacted by the current establishment leaders. Any establishment 'expert' who dares to make a prediction that what those in power are doing is wrong, is likely to quickly lose his or her 'establishment expert' rating and maybe his or her job too.
Imagine a person on the board of the Bank of England who publicly expresses the opinion that quantitative easing is a misguided policy and bad for ordinary members of the population - how long would you expect that person to remain on the board?
A better analogy would be that a group of you are standing on the edge of a cliff, and the field you're standing in is covered with **** and populated with diseased and vicious predators. The height of the cliff means there is a chance you can survive the dive into the water below in pretty good shape, and there is an inviting looking island a mile out to sea that you believe you can swim to.
You've put it to the vote and the majority are in favour of making the jump, but there are some determined individuals who are doing their best to hold everyone where they are...
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
So, no actual evidence at all would convince you that leaving the EU is a bad idea? This still leaves you in the position of a fundamentalist. - No evidence will sway you because you know what's right without critical examination.
- Status