UK General Election

[Tolls]

Furthermore, 64% of people believe that a 'hard Brexit would respect the result of the referendum', only one point below the 'Canada-style' deal which includes free trade. Kind of makes a mockery of the significance of your 'two-thirds' claim.

Considering I would also think that 'hard Brexit would respect the result of the referendum', that's hardly surprising. After all, the referendum simply asked if we should leave or not.

I also consider a hard Brexit to be the worst choice.

 

[3point14]

Is this different than what newspapers have been doing for decades? I can see how the internet helps with getting the right information to the right people but that effect isn't going to go away over time.

I think it's much more concentrated. Yes, newspapers have been doing it for ages, but, if you wanted to see pictures, you'd have to watch the evening news from one of, realistically in the UK two channels. (these days there's also the option of getting 'news' from sky, of course) Watching the evening news then forced one to at least be aware of things that one isn't interested in or that might run contrary to one's worldview.

Now there's no need whatsoever for any of us to leave our cosy cocoons of personalised information. We can get all the visuals we want with a commentator biased ot fit our particular worldview and never have to encounter anything that might be uncomfortable enough to cause reconsideration.

 

[baron]

Considering I would also think that 'hard Brexit would respect the result of the referendum', that's hardly surprising. After all, the referendum simply asked if we should leave or not.

I also consider a hard Brexit to be the worst choice.

So that's fine, you believe in a mandate for Brexit. Everybody (who expresses an opinion) has an ideal scenario and everybody has their best case and worst case scenario. That has nothing to do with a mandate, which was the issue being disputed.

 

[DreadNiK]

Remoaners

*snigger*

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think it's much more concentrated. Yes, newspapers have been doing it for ages, but, if you wanted to see pictures, you'd have to watch the evening news from one of, realistically in the UK two channels. (these days there's also the option of getting 'news' from sky, of course) Watching the evening news then forced one to at least be aware of things that one isn't interested in or that might run contrary to one's worldview.

Now there's no need whatsoever for any of us to leave our cosy cocoons of personalised information. We can get all the visuals we want with a commentator biased ot fit our particular worldview and never have to encounter anything that might be uncomfortable enough to cause reconsideration.

Sounds right but again that's a factor of what is being communicated rather than how it is being communicated (the how is just facilitating the targetting) which is why I'm not sure that it goes away over time.

I'm not even sure the TV effect has gone away so much as we have just got used to it so it seems like a normal thing.

 

[3point14]

Sounds right but again that's a factor of what is being communicated rather than how it is being communicated (the how is just facilitating the targetting) which is why I'm not sure that it goes away over time.

I'm not even sure the TV effect has gone away so much as we have just got used to it so it seems like a normal thing.

Oh, I'm dealing in speculation here, I've no idea how to demonstrate it.

 

[Information Analyst]

Maybe if you stuck to the figures in the report without trying to re-analyse them using laughably biased 'techniques'? And you talk about spin.

On the other hand, my pseudonym here is my actual job title, so I'll wager I know my way around interpreting data more than you think you do.

The doomsday scenario is always just around the corner. When it doesn't play out that doesn't matter because it's still just around the corner! Remoaners put me in mind of the End of Times crowd, always predicting the end of the world yet totally unphased when their dates pass unnoticed, concentrating instead on the next date when Armageddon will really happen, honestly!

"Doomsday scenario" is your hyperbole, not mine. People, though, will lose their jobs, and many more will suffer all manner of "new" inconveniences and expenses as a result.

You seem to have magicked this figure out of nothing and summarised a cherry-picked portion of the explanation to fit your biases.

No, that's you not understanding some fairly basic numbers/options:

16% = "It is more important for Britain to have control over EU immigration into Britain than to keep free trade"
24% = "It is more important to ensure Britain can trade freely with the EU without EU barriers than it is to control EU immigration"
40% = "It is a false choice - it is posible to BOTH control EU immigration into Britain AND to keep free trade with the EU"
19% = "Not sure"

If 24% place free trade over immigration controls, and 40% put free trade on an equal footing as immigration controls, it's hardly "magick" to state that the combined 64% - i.e. roughly two-thirds - see free trade as necessary. That said, the inclusion of "It is a false choice" in one option is a pretty textbook example of a manipulative question.

What it boils down to is everybody wants the best possible outcome, that's hardly surprising, but it's not how negotiation works. Indeed, the report states this:

When you look at the figures overall they tell a very different story. The fourth graphic shows that 52% of people think 'TM's Brexit deal would be good for Britain' and 61% believe that her deal 'would respect the result of the referendum.' Furthermore, 64% of people believe that a 'hard Brexit would respect the result of the referendum', only one point below the 'Canada-style' deal which includes free trade. Kind of makes a mockery of the significance of your 'two-thirds' claim.

Those answers are pretty much meaningless, given that nobody knows yet what "TM's Brexit deal" actually will be. Whether it "respects the result of the referendum" also means little. The referendum was on whetehr teh UK should remain a member of the EU. The end of membership can taken many different forms, all of which would techinically "respect the result of the referendum" as long as membership did in fact end. Obviously a hard Brexit will "respect the result of the referendum," but it will be an utterly **** deal. A soft Brexit would equally "respect the result of the referendum," but would have less negatives than a hard Brexit.

So you can't answer, then.

No, I thought sarcasm was an appropriate response to your apparent ignorance about Le Pen's views of the EU. Le Pen favours Frexit, so obviously Brexit would be a "dry run" for what she wants to do in her own country.

 

[Information Analyst]

So that's fine, you believe in a mandate for Brexit. Everybody (who expresses an opinion) has an ideal scenario and everybody has their best case and worst case scenario. That has nothing to do with a mandate, which was the issue being disputed.

13 people wanting a vague something different, for every 12 people wanting a more tangible something else, is a techincal majority, not a mandate.

 

[baron]

On the other hand, my pseudonym here is my actual job title, so I'll wager I know my way around interpreting data more than you think you do.

Clearly you do not. Maybe management beckons?

"Doomsday scenario" is your hyperbole, not mine. People, though, will lose their jobs, and many more will suffer all manner of "new" inconveniences and expenses as a result.

Where's your evidence of a net negative result of Brexit?

No, that's you not understanding some fairly basic numbers/options:

16% = "It is more important for Britain to have control over EU immigration into Britain than to keep free trade"
24% = "It is more important to ensure Britain can trade freely with the EU without EU barriers than it is to control EU immigration"
40% = "It is a false choice - it is posible to BOTH control EU immigration into Britain AND to keep free trade with the EU"
19% = "Not sure"

If 24% place free trade over immigration controls, and 40% put free trade on an equal footing as immigration controls, it's hardly "magick" to state that the combined 64% - i.e. roughly two-thirds - see free trade as necessary. That said, the inclusion of "It is a false choice" in one option is a pretty textbook example of a manipulative question.

You have misrepresented the entire data set (not to mention using a 'manipulative question' as the primary source of your argument).

Start with the 24%. They did not say we must have free trade, although many will probably believe that, they simply stated it was more important than immigration. Some might not want immigration restricted at all and see free trade as a nice-to-have but ultimately no big deal. They would fall under the 24% header too.

Your misrepresentation of the 40% is even more pronounced. This group said it would be possible to have both immigration restrictions and free trade. They made no comment whatsoever on whether they thought free trade was important to them, or even a factor.

So your 'two thirds' figure is entirely unsupported by the data.

Those answers are pretty much meaningless, given that nobody knows yet what "TM's Brexit deal" actually will be.

So the actual figures in the report are meaningless but the ones you make up are gospel. I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Whether it "respects the result of the referendum" also means little.

No, it is the key fact in relation to my point you disputed, that being it's a mandate for government negotiation resulting in Brexit.

The referendum was on whetehr teh UK should remain a member of the EU. The end of membership can taken many different forms, all of which would techinically "respect the result of the referendum" as long as membership did in fact end. Obviously a hard Brexit will "respect the result of the referendum," but it will be an utterly **** deal. A soft Brexit would equally "respect the result of the referendum," but would have less negatives than a hard Brexit.

So you say. Why would I believe this?

No, I thought sarcasm was an appropriate response to your apparent ignorance about Le Pen's views of the EU. Le Pen favours Frexit, so obviously Brexit would be a "dry run" for what she wants to do in her own country.

So what? What France goes and does has no impact on Brexit. I ask again, what he Le Pen got to do with Brexit?

 

[theprestige]

Point 4 shows why. A clear majority, 40% of the electorate, thinks UK can secure a free trade deal to it's liking while achieving control over immigration. The fact this would cause the EU to disintegrate doesn't seem to register with them.

McHrozni

Perhaps they just don't feel obligated to keep the EU together on the EU's terms.

 

[Information Analyst]

Clearly you do not. Maybe management beckons?

Meanwhile you will keep on with your boringly predictable and cack-brained arguments that we can have our cake, eat it, and save a bit for later.

 

[baron]

Meanwhile you will keep on with your boringly predictable and cack-brained arguments that we can have our cake, eat it, and save a bit for later.

That option is only available for those who positively engage and try to make it work. For the rest, their cake will always taste like ****.

 

[Information Analyst]

That option is only available for those who positively engage and try to make it work.

Yes, I daresay people like you will continue to delude yourselves.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Perhaps they just don't feel obligated to keep the EU together on the EU's terms.

They should probably work on the assumption that the EU does though.

Public support for unrealistic outcomes isn't a mandate for anything except maybe investing in schools.

 

[theprestige]

They should probably work on the assumption that the EU does though.

So? It's the EU's job to bring that consideration to the table. There's nothing to be gained by conceding points of dispute before negotiations have even started--before the points of dispute have even been declared.

ETA: It's like you're trying to hypothetically resolve the entire dispute in the EU's favor, before it's even properly begun, so that you can then use your hypothetical resolution to prove that the dispute should never have been raised in the first place.

 

[Giz]

ETA: It's like you're trying to hypothetically resolve the entire dispute in the EU's favor, before it's even properly begun, so that you can then use your hypothetical resolution to prove that the dispute should never have been raised in the first place.

This.

 

[MCel58]

So? It's the EU's job to bring that consideration to the table. There's nothing to be gained by conceding points of dispute before negotiations have even started--before the points of dispute have even been declared.

ETA: It's like you're trying to hypothetically resolve the entire dispute in the EU's favor, before it's even properly begun, so that you can then use your hypothetical resolution to prove that the dispute should never have been raised in the first place.

The EU have already brought their considerations to the table in the form of the guidelines for their side of the negotiations and a sizeable vote in the EU parliament so we are no longer talking in hypotheticals. They are clear that the EU team is negotiating the departure of the U.K. from the EU and will not even discuss any form of trade deal until issues such as budget commitments and existing citizen rights and placement of agencies, the NI agreement and border, Gibraltar etc etc have been decided on and significant progress has been made. You can try and ignore these things but the terms that the EU are prepared to negotiate on have been set. If TM believes that getting another mandate from the country is going to somehow change these terms then she is as delusional as most other Brexiteers.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

UK: I'm leaving you.
EU: So sorry for you. OK.
UK: When I leave I'll slam the door.
EU: Par for our friendship so far. And?
UK: I've left!!!! Article five-oh, baby! You don't care, so there!
EU: What about the furniture and the children?
UK: I'll through fiscal stones at your house, btw.
EU: What say we finish the divorce first?
UK: Uh, what say, a little sex once in a while?
EU: Out of the question.
UK: I'll encourage your other friends to hate you, too.
EU: Please concentrate on packing your things.
UK: Gimme some snooky!
EU: OK, so now I've had to kick you in your "rocks" of Gibraltar. Please stop!
UK: I'm throwing a hate-you party (aka "election")!! Yay for me.
EU: So glad for you. OK. Leave.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So? It's the EU's job to bring that consideration to the table. There's nothing to be gained by conceding points of dispute before negotiations have even started--before the points of dispute have even been declared.

ETA: It's like you're trying to hypothetically resolve the entire dispute in the EU's favor, before it's even properly begun, so that you can then use your hypothetical resolution to prove that the dispute should never have been raised in the first place.

Well that's fine and dandy but misses the point. Feel free to want and try to get whatever you feel is the best outcome but if 40% of people support Brexit on the belief that they can get that then it's not a mandate to deliver a Brexit that doesn't get that outcome.

The answer in the survey doesn't talk about what they might prefer but rather what they think is that case and speaks to the blind optimism or poor understanding of the issue on the part of Brexiteers.

Oh and i hate the idea that this is even packaged as being in the EU favour because the EU position is in the UKs favour too. It's the Brexiteers who are working against the UK here.

 

[MikeG]

UK: I'm leaving you.
EU: So sorry for you. OK.
UK: When I leave I'll slam the door.
EU: Par for our friendship so far. And?
UK: I've left!!!! Article five-oh, baby! You don't care, so there!
EU: What about the furniture and the children?
UK: I'll through fiscal stones at your house, btw.
EU: What say we finish the divorce first?
UK: Uh, what say, a little sex once in a while?
EU: Out of the question.
UK: I'll encourage your other friends to hate you, too.
EU: Please concentrate on packing your things.
UK: Gimme some snooky!
EU: OK, so now I've had to kick you in your "rocks" of Gibraltar. Please stop!
UK: I'm throwing a hate-you party (aka "election")!! Yay for me.
EU: So glad for you. OK. Leave.

Inane, inaccurate, and in the wrong thread.