Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Belz...]

Well if you agree there is a risk (and you seemed not to earlier) then can we agree that someone who takes a risk without making any effort to understand the consequences of that risk is acting in an unintelligent way?

First of all, I object to lumping all of the Leave voters in the same basket. Though they may statistically be less informed, they are not all less informed, and the latter group may well think that the price to pay is worth it to avoid whatever other outcome they voted against.

Second, I don't see why you're so dead-set in calling them stupid. Saying that they are under-informed as a general rule should be enough, no?

And furthermore if those same people dismiss the information put in front of them as mere scaremongering and actively promote the idea that experts don't know anything and should be ignored can we say we are getting into 'stupid' territory?

Didn't Remain dismiss stuff they saw as mere scaremongering?

The Darwin Awards are a good example of stupid self inflicted harm. Brexit is an Economic Darwin Award in the making.

I guess we'll see in a few decades, assuming they go through with it. They still have a few months to press the abort button.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

First of all, I object to lumping all of the Leave voters in the same basket.

Well I haven't done that so we're good.

Though they may statistically be less informed, they are not all less informed, and the latter group may well think that the price to pay is worth it to avoid whatever other outcome they voted against.

Indeed. But those latter group would not have been enough to win the vote by themselves. Hence why they had to lie and mislead the stupid.

Second, I don't see why you're so dead-set in calling them stupid.

Mainly because you seem to be deadset in not calling them that. When someone does something unintelligent that causes me harm for stupid reasons it makes me feel 0.05% better to at least be allowed to say they are stupid. And when someone comes along and says don't call them stupid as if somehow they are the victims it makes me feel a little bit worse.

Saying that they are under-informed as a general rule should be enough, no?

In the same way that if someone cuts you up while driving you would call them 'mistakenly driving in a temporarily inconvenient manner' rather than a ******


[quote
Didn't Remain dismiss stuff they saw as mere scaremongering?[/quote]

No. Not from experts better qualified to make that judgement. What they did was counter fallacious claims from people shown to be factually wrong. Not even close to the same thing.

You seem to have bought into the idea that all opinions are equally valid?

I guess we'll see in a few decades, assuming they go through with it. They still have a few months to press the abort button.

Decades? We can see it clear as day already. Mind you if someone jumps off a building because they think we can fly I guess we need to wait for them to hit the ground before we can say that they might have been stupid to do that?

 

[Belz...]

Indeed. But those latter group would not have been enough to win the vote by themselves. Hence why they had to lie and mislead the stupid.

By the same logic, the stupid weren't enough to win the vote by themselves. Does that not mean that we're in general agreement, here?

Mainly because you seem to be deadset in not calling them that.

You're calling them stupid because I refrain from doing so? That is bizarre, so I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.

In the same way that if someone cuts you up while driving you would call them 'mistakenly driving in a temporarily inconvenient manner' rather than a ******

Ah, now we're getting to the root of the issue. There is a difference between calling someone stupid under your breath in a fit of frustration in the moment, and flat-out arguing that people who voted the 'wrong' way are actually stupid.

No. Not from experts better qualified to make that judgement.

There was _no_ attempt at mislead from the Remain side?

You seem to have bought into the idea that all opinions are equally valid?

Pretty telling that your response to a disagreement on black-and-white thinking is to introduce a single shade of gray and call that wrong, too. I think we could call it the fallacy of the forced middle.

Decades? We can see it clear as day already.

I don't think either of us knows what's going to happen. And what I meant is that, in 50 years the UK might be doing better out of the UK than in. We just don't know, so let's not pretend to.

 

[Amazer]

I don't think either of us knows what's going to happen. And what I meant is that, in 50 years the UK might be doing better out of the UK than in. We just don't know, so let's not pretend to.

Maybe doing better in 50 years time is only interesting if you manage to survive the short term consequences of the decision to exit the EU without a withdrawal agreement.

If the cliff edge is going to be as bad as some people think, or godforbid worse, there might not even be a UK anymore. Scotland and northern Ireland would surely leave and seek indepence or unification.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[Belz...]

Maybe doing better in 50 years time is only interesting if you manage to survive the short term consequences of the decision to exit the EU without a withdrawal agreement.

Apologies. I'm looking at the long-term effects because every decision of this magnitude has an adaptation period, and this one will have effects for quite a while. I think it's fair to say that we should look at the long term to see if the decision turns out to be good or not.

 

[Amazer]

Apologies. I'm looking at the long-term effects because every decision of this magnitude has an adaptation period, and this one will have effects for quite a while. I think it's fair to say that we should look at the long term to see if the decision turns out to be good or not.

No need to apologise... under normal circumstances I would agree with you on this subject. However, the UK is made up of 4 countries... 2 of which voted by quite large margins to remain. Any prolonged downturn will lead for ever increasing calls to split of from the UK. So it could well be an Apple and oranges comparison after 50 years.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[Aber]

And Chequers Mk2 is floated:

Under the plan, which May is likely to put forward later this month, the U.K. would back down on its opposition to new checks on goods moving between the British mainland and Northern Ireland. In exchange, May’s team would need the EU to compromise and allow the whole of the U.K. including Northern Ireland to stay in the bloc’s customs regime.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules


Something guaranteed to annoy everybody not called Theresa May.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

At the time of the vote the message that was being given out was that there was no risk, it was going to be golden and we would have all this extra money to spend on the NHS.
Many still seem to be insisting that is how it will be.... not sure why.

The curious thing is that not only did they have to believe that reassuring message, but they had to ignore, or reject as "project fear", the messages that manufacturing and city jobs would flow away to be inside the EU27.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And Chequers Mk2 is floated:



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules


Something guaranteed to annoy everybody not called Theresa May.

I'm obviously missing something but how does that work/solve the problem?

If GB stays in the customs union with NI then there's no need for a check but the UK didn't want to stay in the customs union.

If GB stays in some kind of non customs union customs bloc (and what is that exactly?) then goods could pass from the EU direct to GB so what is the check between NI and GB for?

I know TM thinks we are stupid but is she actually attempting to stay in a customs union without calling a customs union? or is she attempting to put a border between NI and GB without calling a border? or is she actually going to put a hard border in Ireland without calling that a border?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

By the same logic, the stupid weren't enough to win the vote by themselves. Does that not mean that we're in general agreement, here?

Is the problem that you think I said all Leave voters were stupid? No I said some of them were dishonest, some of them were bigots, some of them were ignorant and some of them were just stupid.

Not sure if any of those groups were big enough to get it over the line but they are a wonderful basket of deplorables together.

You're calling them stupid because I refrain from doing so? That is bizarre, so I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.

No, I'm insisting on calling them stupid because you came along and insisted that they weren't. As if somehow we should be sorry for them and treat them with kid gloves. They aren't the victims, they are the bullies.

Ah, now we're getting to the root of the issue. There is a difference between calling someone stupid under your breath in a fit of frustration in the moment, and flat-out arguing that people who voted the 'wrong' way are actually stupid.

Its nothing to do with how they voted. It's the stupid things they said and the stupid arguments they made. They were stupid before the vote and remain stupid after it. Of course some of them are just bigots and some of them stand to benefit from the economic disaster.

Nigel Farage for example isn't stupid. Nor is BoJo. Far worse words describe that pair of cretins.

There was _no_ attempt at mislead from the Remain side?

That's not even close to what you asked. You asked whether the remain side dismissed facts and sound arguments from experts and remained wilfully ignorant. They didn't.

Pretty telling that your response to a disagreement on black-and-white thinking is to introduce a single shade of gray and call that wrong, too. I think we could call it the fallacy of the forced middle.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The point is that when an expert who actually understands the issues says X and you dismiss it out of hand that's not equivalent to when a non-expert says 'Y' and you can show that he's talking nonsense and therefore dismiss it out of hand.

We have had this problem before when you have considered a statement of fact countered by an unsupported assertion to be a controversial topic up for debate.

It's the nub of why so many people nowadays are misinformed and or ignorant. Because too many people in the media believe balance means giving equal weight to both sides of an argument rather than actually establishing what is true and pointing out if one side is talking crap.

I don't think either of us knows what's going to happen. And what I meant is that, in 50 years the UK might be doing better out of the UK than in. We just don't know, so let's not pretend to.

This is just 'you can't prove there is no God' dressed up in a suit and tie. Expert opinion backed by analysis and documented assumptions all point to the same results - the UK will be somewhere between a little or a hell of a lot worse off. That someone else comes along and says 'nah... everything will be fine' is not a counter argument and doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions.

Its also probably worth noting that not one Leave campaigner said anything about of this BEFORE the vote. Nobody was saying we will be worse off but its worth it or that we wouldn't know the result for 50 years. This is all retconning BS pulled out of the bag after it became obvious that they were incapable of delivering on their lies.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm insisting on calling them stupid because you came along and insisted that they weren't.

That's just as silly as what I said. Why would your opinion hinge on mine? At least I've made my own disagreement clear: I don't think we can characterise people as stupid for the reasons stated, and certainly not all of those who voted 'wrong'.

They aren't the victims, they are the bullies.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? They voted for their prefered outcome. There is no bullying in the democratic process. What a strange thing to say.

Its nothing to do with how they voted. It's the stupid things they said and the stupid arguments they made.

We're talking about the voters, not the campaigners.

That's not even close to what you asked.

I was responding to what you said. Dammit, you're just completely dead-set on disagreeing with me on every single small detail.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Don't you? You're the one who brought a strawman to the table. Apparently the mere fact that I'm not entirely against either side must mean that I'm dead center. That is ridiculous, as if you just found out that gray exists, but you're not quite to the point where shades exist yet.

We have had this problem before when you have considered a statement of fact countered by an unsupported assertion to be a controversial topic up for debate.

...What?

This is just 'you can't prove there is no God' dressed up in a suit and tie.

Again, what? Do you have any specific argument to make rather than just nay-saying me?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Apologies. I'm looking at the long-term effects because every decision of this magnitude has an adaptation period, and this one will have effects for quite a while. I think it's fair to say that we should look at the long term to see if the decision turns out to be good or not.

The really curious thing is that the people who voted in greatest proportions to leave will be dead in fifty years, and those who will be alive in fifty years voted overwhelmingly to stay. It doesn't look as though the prospect of short term cost but overall long term gain was a major motivation to the Leave vote.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

The really curious thing is that the people who voted in greatest proportions to leave will be dead in fifty years, and those who will be alive in fifty years voted overwhelmingly to stay.

Yeah we touched upon that a couple of days ago, I think. But you know, we usually don't prevent older people from voting just because they'll be dead by the time most of the effects of the vote are felt.

 

[jimbob]

My theory would be correlation rather than causation.

In general Brexiteers don't like people who aren't like them - the social issues chart shows that quite clearly. They don't like multiculturalism, they don't like feminism, they don't like environmentalism, they don't even like the internet FFS!

They hark back to a better time (which never existed) and fear for the future if we keep allowing all this progressive nonsense (like allowing foreign looking people to live here) to take hold. They also seem to have an obsession with other people taking what is 'theirs' and the idea that anyone else is getting something that they don't. They don't like funding the EU because they give the money to Hungarian lesbian wind-farmers. They don't like that Scotland chooses to fund free prescriptions for its people.

They are ultra conservative with a small c and mainly with a large C too.

It's the same as the MAGA BS. It seems logical to me that those people would also see Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish as 'others' and therefore choose to tag themselves as English.

There's also an element to it where people of colour, to them, aren't really 'English' they can call themselves British but the 'English' are a people separate to that.

Again in the US there is a bit of a parallel to that. There isn't really an 'American' ethnicity that they can claim so they have invented this mythical idea of a 'white European' race as something that they can claim membership of while excluding and othering everyone else.

And as if to prove your point there is the event that this is poking fun at.

Theresa May's Brexit Festival of Britain. Which is pretty redolent of 1951. When of course, there still was some rationing.


When I saw that, and The Moog's future wikipedia entry on Boris Johnson's bridges, I initially didn't realise they were talking about recent idiotic ideas by high-profile Conservative party members.

 

[jimbob]

Didn't Remain dismiss stuff they saw as mere scaremongering?

Well, there was actual scaremongering - like the 70-million Turks about to join the EU and flood into the UK.

Lots of lies by the Leave campaign. Lots of help by Russia.

 

[GlennB]

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – no matter how improbable – must be the truth. Which means that the only rational explanation for the current behaviour of the Tory party is that most of its members are out of their heads on psychotropic drugs.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's just as silly as what I said. Why would your opinion hinge on mine? At least I've made my own disagreement clear: I don't think we can characterise people as stupid for the reasons stated, and certainly not all of those who voted 'wrong'.



What in the blue hell are you talking about? They voted for their prefered outcome. There is no bullying in the democratic process. What a strange thing to say.



We're talking about the voters, not the campaigners.



I was responding to what you said. Dammit, you're just completely dead-set on disagreeing with me on every single small detail.



Don't you? You're the one who brought a strawman to the table. Apparently the mere fact that I'm not entirely against either side must mean that I'm dead center. That is ridiculous, as if you just found out that gray exists, but you're not quite to the point where shades exist yet.



...What?



Again, what? Do you have any specific argument to make rather than just nay-saying me?

If you are going to keep chopping my posts to hell and cutting out most of the relevant content then pretending that there isn't any I'm not going to play anymore.

Feel free to keep defending the bullies and bigots and idiots that voted for Leave from the safety of very far away. God forbid anyone calls them something you disapprove of, but hey its OK we can just let people die for 50 years because of their stupidity and see if everything works out just fine.

 

[Belz...]

If you are going to keep chopping my posts to hell and cutting out most of the relevant content then pretending that there isn't any I'm not going to play anymore.

Dude, I'm responding to your SPECIFIC point by isolating them and answering them individually. What the hell's the problem with that? What would you want me to do? Quote your posts in a single block like you just did and ignore those points? That's just not how I do things. If you feel like I've skipped something worth addressing, then say so. I'll try to correct the mistake.

Feel free to keep defending the bullies and bigots and idiots that voted for Leave from the safety of very far away.

Voting. Is. Not. Bullying.

You're the one who is overly emotional about this issue, so maybe you should take a step back and realise that you're not being objective here.

God forbid anyone calls them something you disapprove of

Yes, heaven forbid that I object to painting millions of people with a single brush that allows you to ignore what they think or want because it disagrees with you.

but hey its OK we can just let people die for 50 years because of their stupidity and see if everything works out just fine.

Calm down, Archie. No one's saying that people dying is good. What I'm saying is that major decisions like that, even, say, a healthcare bill, is going to cause deaths no matter what. The question is whether the end result is better or worse, and in my opinion it's not something we'll know for a while. Hell, the American Civil War still has effects now.

 

[ceptimus]

Economic forecasts are certainly not "statements of facts." They are notoriously inaccurate - little better than horoscopes. Anyone who bets her future on such "facts" is stupid.

 

[Lothian]

Economic forecasts are certainly not "statements of facts." They are notoriously inaccurate - little better than horoscopes. Anyone who bets her future on such "facts" is stupid.

Seems every chancellor of the Exchequer we have ever had is stupid. I wonder what alternative you suggest chancellors resort to when setting budgets. I guess the reading of chlorine washed chicken bones.

Still some good news. Migration Watch today predict that post brexit migration will increase albeit the immigrants will come from the 3rd world rather than Europe. That will please the racist leavers.