Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[GnaGnaMan]

Sounds reasonable enough. A bit vague, as these things tend to be, by design, but it sounds good on paper. Ceptimus seems to think otherwise, but assuming that this is applied as it sounds when I read it, this could be a case of reasonable but incorrect opinion.

You should have asked straight away for the basic background information. I naturally assumed that you were fully informed on the issue. This lead me to assume that your shady character example was about EU standards on human rights and the rule of law being too high.

I don't know. If you've stooped to calling people who disagree with you fools, I doubt you'll allow that their opinions, while wrong from your perspective, or even objectively incorrect, could be reasonable.

They call brexiteers fools because 1)a subset of brexiteers is misinformed and 2) they regard this as a consequence of wilfull negligence which creates moral culpability.

 

[Lothian]

May is demanding that the EU treat her with respect, and no Prime minister would agree to a border in the Irish sea. She is clearly forgetting that she signed up to and agreement that had a border in the Irish Sea on 19 March this year. The transition agreement.
Respect is earned not demanded.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, that is known as a strawman. As I responded earlier, I'm arguing that a position can be reasonable even if it turns out to be incorrect.

Reasonable and incorrect are mutually exclusive in my book.

A conclusion can be reasonable based on incorrect information but that doesn't make the argument reasonable and it certainly doesn't justify continuing to hold on to the argument after its shown to be wrong.

It appears that you are now saying that those who understand the issues and those who are ignorant of relevant facts should be given equal weight in the discussion and that, in fact people who know better should take on board the points made by those who are ignorant even when they know they are wrong!

You actually see that all the time in court, where a person's belief or reasonable expectations are used to judge their actions even when those beliefs and expectations turned out to be wrong.

Not on matters of fact which could be obtained with a cursory Google.

 

[Belz...]

You should have asked straight away for the basic background information. I naturally assumed that you were fully informed on the issue.

My description of the 'reasonable concern' is not predicated on whether the UK can or can't deny entry. Besides, the jury's still out on exactly what can prompt such a denial.

This lead me to assume that your shady character example was about EU standards on human rights and the rule of law being too high.

This is at least the third time that you've decided to use an attack on me. Any particular reason? Were you being sarcastic when you lauded my civility? Or are you deliberately attempting to elicit an emotional response? I'm sure you know me well enough to know that, if it's a flame war you want, I'm more than willing and able to oblige.

Reasonable and incorrect are mutually exclusive in my book.

A conclusion can be reasonable based on incorrect information but that doesn't make the argument reasonable and it certainly doesn't justify continuing to hold on to the argument after its shown to be wrong.

I don't see how that can be anything but contradictory.

It appears that you are now saying that those who understand the issues and those who are ignorant of relevant facts should be given equal weight in the discussion and that, in fact people who know better should take on board the points made by those who are ignorant even when they know they are wrong!

I don't know how this can "appear" to be what I'm saying but I'll bet it's because you're adding words to the discussion that I did not utter. I'm saying what I'm writing, and nothing else.

 

[3point14]

British culture isn't one thing, though they're all recognisably British. But that doesn't really matter because what people experienced was what happened to their own town. Or what they imagined was happening to towns all over, based on stuff they read in the Mail and Express. And it wasn't about Hebrideans coming to London and living on welfare while taking all the livestock jobs.

People voted to leave because the level of immigration was too high for too long and there's a threshold above which people get the gut feeling that their high street doesn't feel like home any more and they don't like it. You can dismiss that as racism but... oh, wait, that's exactly what happened, and it did the opposite of helping. People who were upset about their own area changing (or were upset about all the stories they read about other areas changing) and read over and over that there was nothing the government could do about it because of EU rules, wanted a way to change it. And if they complained they were dismissed as racists.


We sleepwalked into this catastrophe by dealing with people's concerns by telling them only horrible evil people have concerns like those then asking them to vote on it and expecting them to be all nice and reasonable.

I think the immigration is just a red herring.

People are upset by rising wealth inequality, rising house prices and stagnant wages. The Mail have managed to get people to believe it was all the fault of the immigrants, the Tory party have blamed Europe for the immigrants while being mainly responsible for falling public services, and instituting policies that expand the inequalities rather than reduce them.


It's all about low information voters being misled by those with vested interests.

 

[ceptimus]

6,500 EU Nationals denied entry to UK between 2010 and 2016 with the number rising.

So only about one thousand people per year - about three people each day - stopped in total at all UK ports of entry. That's around one person in every 20,000 EU nationals entering the UK - and for each of those one in twenty thousand there were good reasons for denying their entry - they were most often either criminals or terrorists.

Note that just having a criminal record isn't sufficient reason to deny entry - if someone has committed a crime but already been punished for it, then they still have the right to enter.

 

[Belz...]

I think the immigration is just a red herring.

People are upset by rising wealth inequality, rising house prices and stagnant wages. The Mail have managed to get people to believe it was all the fault of the immigrants, the Tory party have blamed Europe for the immigrants while being mainly responsible for falling public services, and instituting policies that expand the inequalities rather than reduce them.


It's all about low information voters being misled by those with vested interests.

It's always minorities and foreigners who get blamed for these things. I guess it's just easier and 'natural', for humans, to go after those perceived as different.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

My description of the 'reasonable concern' is not predicated on whether the UK can or can't deny entry.

A random person in india, who is worried about deadly snakes is quite possible being reasonable.
A random person in Ireland with the same worry is certainly not.

Besides, the jury's still out on exactly what can prompt such a denial.

Feel free to look up past cases.

This is at least the third time that you've decided to use an attack on me. Any particular reason? Were you being sarcastic when you lauded my civility? Or are you deliberately attempting to elicit an emotional response? I'm sure you know me well enough to know that, if it's a flame war you want, I'm more than willing and able to oblige.

I am not sure why you see it as an attack on you when I admit to a mistake. Or are you worried that I am saying that you are not fully informed? I mean, do you think you are?

 

[Belz...]

A random person in india, who is worried about deadly snakes is quite possible being reasonable.
A random person in Ireland with the same worry is certainly not.

Sure.

I am not sure why you see it as an attack on you when I admit to a mistake.

It sounded like you were accusing me of being opposed to the EU's high standards of human rights. It really, really sounded like it. Is that not what you said?

Or are you worried that I am saying that you are not fully informed? I mean, do you think you are?

I'm not quite there in terms of hubris, but I'm working on it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My description of the 'reasonable concern' is not predicated on whether the UK can or can't deny entry.

It certainly seemed to be originally. Can you clarify specifically what the issue was then?

Besides, the jury's still out on exactly what can prompt such a denial.

If the UKBA decides it doesn't want to admit you it won't. Of course you may have the right to appeal the decision if you want to. Good luck getting UKBA to spell out exactly what they consider to be grounds for denial since they tend to keep things intentionally vague.

I don't see how that can be anything but contradictory.

Logically you can reach a reasonable conclusion based on faulty premises. But the fact your premises are fault undermines the validity and reasonableness of the whole argument.

Perhaps its a language thing. You seem to be suggesting that I should consider reasonable arguments that I know to be wrong rather than simply acknowledging that it is ignorance that has caused the person to be in the wrong.

Unless you are using reasonable as a synonym for understandable? It's certainly understandable that people who are wrong or ignorant of the facts conclude things which are wrong. My question is what exactly you want me to do with arguments that I know to be factually incorrect and which the holders refuse to revise in the face of contrary evidence.

I'm reminded here of people who insist they have reasonable arguments for the existence of God and that there are sophisticated theologians who have great arguments for it. And yet every single one of them that is presented is nonsense. And then atheists are told they are in the wrong for dismissing these nonsense arguments.

I don't know how this can "appear" to be what I'm saying but I'll bet it's because you're adding words to the discussion that I did not utter. I'm saying what I'm writing, and nothing else.

Well I'm wondering exactly what you want me to do then. You said there were reasonable arguments for Brexit that were not being given proper consideration but the one you presented is factually incorrect. You seem to claim that doesn't matter and that I should still be doing SOMETHING to give it a fair shake but I'm not sure what that SOMETHING is.

If someone says something I know to be wrong then I think I'm right to dismiss that argument out of hand. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[McHrozni]

May is demanding that the EU treat her with respect, and no Prime minister would agree to a border in the Irish sea. She is clearly forgetting that she signed up to and agreement that had a border in the Irish Sea on 19 March this year. The transition agreement.
Respect is earned not demanded.

Negotiating with Theresa May reminds me of all those negotiations with North Korea. They too often agreed to things only to denounce them a week later.

McHrozni

 

[Belz...]

It certainly seemed to be originally. Can you clarify specifically what the issue was then?

I was asked a question as to whether Leave voters could have legitimate concerns or reasons for voting leave.

If the UKBA decides it doesn't want to admit you it won't. Of course you may have the right to appeal the decision if you want to. Good luck getting UKBA to spell out exactly what they consider to be grounds for denial since they tend to keep things intentionally vague.

Sounds like they should be more transparent.

Logically you can reach a reasonable conclusion based on faulty premises. But the fact your premises are fault undermines the validity and reasonableness of the whole argument.

You won't get any argument from me there.

Perhaps its a language thing. You seem to be suggesting that I should consider reasonable arguments that I know to be wrong rather than simply acknowledging that it is ignorance that has caused the person to be in the wrong.

No, I'm suggesting that someone who's wrong isn't necessarily racist or stupid, as was stated earlier.

I'm reminded here of people who insist they have reasonable arguments for the existence of God and that there are sophisticated theologians who have great arguments for it.

Well, if I lived on the side of a mountain 5000 years ago and it blew up, sending flames and destruction to my village, I might be reasonable in thinking that the mountain was angry. After all, nobody knows better.

Well I'm wondering exactly what you want me to do then.

I'm simply asking you not to presume that I mean something other than what I'm saying, that's all.

If someone says something I know to be wrong then I think I'm right to dismiss that argument out of hand. Do you agree or disagree?

If you know it to be wrong, I'd argue that you're not dismissing it out of hand at all.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Where did I say this?

Feel free to correct me and explain your point but I believe you suggested that its understandable that Europeans should care about immigration given the different cultures across the continent whereas the US would care less so because there is a single culture (or at least less variation) across the US?

We seem to be in general confusion as to their actual ability to do so, however.

I'm not sure where the confusion lies other than with people saying 'nuh-huh'. This is more or less exactly a microcosm of the problem. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. An argument where one side simply denies the facts is not a reasonable one. UKBA has the ability to refuse entry to the UK. If you don't believe me try an experiment the next time you are in an airport in the UK.

Could you explain why it's a bad example? That would help, because otherwise you can just call every example I come up with 'bad' and thereby refuse to give my point a fair hearing. In my example, the UK government doesn't want to allow a person who has shown to engage in questionable business practices. How is that a bad example?

Because it's counter to reality. The UK Government loves people who engage in questionable business practices and throws visas at them.

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/home-office-golden-visa-service-oligarchs/

However, if there is a legitimate concern over variations in granting of EU citizenship across member states it would seem that the solution to that would be a standardisation of requirements across the EU rather than leaving the EU. Of course this would be anathema to Leavers which suggests to me that their concern isn't anything to do with this hypothetical at all but more basic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So only about one thousand people per year - about three people each day - stopped in total at all UK ports of entry. That's around one person in every 20,000 EU nationals entering the UK - and for each of those one in twenty thousand there were good reasons for denying their entry - they were most often either criminals or terrorists.

Note that just having a criminal record isn't sufficient reason to deny entry - if someone has committed a crime but already been punished for it, then they still have the right to enter.

So we are in agreement then that UKBA can deny EU citizens entry to the UK?

I should damn well hope there were good reasons (you've obviously checked, so i'll trust your judgement) to deny them entry. Since that's what I originally stated and was what Belz was asking about.

The idea that we should be able to deny people entry for no good reason would seem to be firmly in the 'little bit racist' camp.

 

[Belz...]

Feel free to correct me and explain your point but I believe you suggested that its understandable that Europeans should care about immigration given the different cultures across the continent whereas the US would care less so because there is a single culture (or at least less variation) across the US?

No, I did not say this.

Now, whether someone should be concerned about different cultures coming into their country? I guess it depends on the cultures but it can be reasonable or not, depending on what we're talking about. Anyway that had nothing to do with my point.

This is more or less exactly a microcosm of the problem. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.

True but there seems to be a disagreement on the facts.

Because it's counter to reality. The UK Government loves people who engage in questionable business practices and throws visas at them.

I don't see that as a legitimate objection to my example because the objection is largley irrelevant. Hell, use my Lenin example instead. It doesn't matter as we're discussing a principle, not a specific event.

Bowever, if there is a legitimate concern over variations in granting of EU citizenship across member states it would seem that the solution to that would be a standardisation of requirements across the EU rather than leaving the EU.

Yes, that is my opinion as well. It sounds like a much better solution than the clustercrap we have now.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I was asked a question as to whether Leave voters could have legitimate concerns or reasons for voting leave.

And I said yes they could and would love to hear one. Just as I would love to hear a good argument for voting for Trump or a good argument for the existence of God.

But you now seem to have moved on to including 'ones we know are wrong' as legitimate. Can't agree with that.

I can go back and check but I think I also included 'ignorant' with 'racist' or 'stupid'. The problem is that ignorance is only an excuse up to the point where you are corrected. And again arguments , concerns or reasons based on ignorance of facts are not legitimate.

You also have the issue of what is driving the ignorance or incorrect assumptions and when you dig into you then pretty much hit the racist or stupid button again.

But hey, I'm all ears.

We have dismissed now the idea that the UK can't stop 'bad people' coming to the country if they are EU citizens. What else have we got in the reasonable argument bucket??

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

True but there seems to be a disagreement on the facts.

No, there really isn't. The facts are the facts. Again someone offering a contrary opinion doesn't change the facts. This is the problem. Because you can find someone to disagree with anything it doesn't mean there is legitimate disagreement on the facts.

There is no legitimate reason to believe homeopathy works. Plenty people will disagree.

There is no legitimate reason to avoid vaccinations. Plenty people will disagree.

 

[Belz...]

And I said yes they could and would love to hear one.

And as I said I don't expect anyone here to even consider such an argument on its own merit.

Just as I would love to hear a good argument for voting for Trump or a good argument for the existence of God.

Yeah I'll have to work harder on those.

But you now seem to have moved on to including 'ones we know are wrong' as legitimate.

I haven't moved at all. That was part of the argument to begin with. I just didn't mention it because I didn't think it important until it came up.

You also have the issue of what is driving the ignorance or incorrect assumptions and when you dig into you then pretty much hit the racist or stupid button again.

There is absolutely no question that racism and intolerance and ignorance are important factors in the vote, not to mention outside interference.

What else have we got in the reasonable argument bucket??

Well, I mentioned a few posts back the 'democratic deficit' of the EU. I think that needs to be addressed but without breaking the EU and building EU 2.0 I don't see how that can be entirely resolved. It's a tough situation because now the member-states are all pretty much fused at the hip, and the looming threat of Russia sure is a good incentive to bit one's lips and just endure the EU's problems because the alternative is probably much worse.

 

[Belz...]

No, there really isn't. The facts are the facts.

And YET you find people disagreeing on facts all the time. That means that both sides think they have the facts on their side. In a lot of cases it's either trivial or at least relatively easy to know which is correct. Sometimes it's a lot more complicated.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't see that as a legitimate objection to my example because the objection is largley irrelevant. Hell, use my Lenin example instead. It doesn't matter as we're discussing a principle, not a specific event.

Well it just seems odd that if you are arguing that something is a problem worthy of consideration that you have to go straight to an unlikely hypothetical which is actually at odds with what we see happening rather than actual examples of the problem at hand.

Yes, that is my opinion as well. It sounds like a much better solution than the clustercrap we have now.

And yet Brexiteers wouldn't have it. So I think we can say that this isn't a real worry for them.