Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Lukraak_Sisser]

You're not reading. France, Netherlands, Denmark - the people voted AGAINST the changes. But the changes were introduced anyhow. And without a second referendum. How democratic is that?

Actually in the Netherlands about 70% of the people did NOT vote at all. So saying the people voted against is not really true. Most of the people just did not care and of those that did a small margin was against.

 

[erwinl]

Actually in the Netherlands about 70% of the people did NOT vote at all. So saying the people voted against is not really true. Most of the people just did not care and of those that did a small margin was against.

And it was a non binding referendum as well.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It really is pointless attempting to argue the point with a Brexiteer. They simply ignore what is being told to them, shift the goalposts then assert something else false.

This started with a claim that governments had a veto over ever closer union - this was denied and when pointed out that he was havering it simply switched to well they didn't ask the people if they wanted to use the veto. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the initial claim.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Actually in the Netherlands about 70% of the people did NOT vote at all.

Yeah but do we really want to start pulling at that string? "Did not vote" has won the majority of elections in history. I'm pretty sure here in American he's been elected President every single time at least.

In countries that don't have mandatory voting you just sort of have to accept that democracy is only for people who bother to show up.

 

[Belz...]

It really is pointless attempting to argue the point with a Brexiteer.

And BAM! Exactly what I was saying. You do paint them all with the same brush in order to put them all in the same box so you can cover the box up and no look at what's inside.

Ok the analogy was a bit tortured but you get the idea.

 

[Lothian]

And BAM! Exactly what I was saying. You do paint them all with the same brush in order to put them all in the same box so you can cover the box up and no look at what's inside.

Ok the analogy was a bit tortured but you get the idea.

How do you categorise the flat earthers into sensible and stupid?

 

[Belz...]

How do you categorise the flat earthers into sensible and stupid?

I categorise them as hilarious, mainly, but I'm undecided as to whether they're mostly grossly uninformed or just plain dumb.

But there's a difference between believing that the earth is FLAT against all evidence, and having a different opinion about international alliances.

 

[Greebo]

I categorise them as hilarious, mainly, but I'm undecided as to whether they're mostly grossly uninformed or just plain dumb.

But there's a difference between believing that the earth is FLAT against all evidence, and having a different opinion about international alliances.

A better example, I think, would be between an atheist and a theist.

 

[Belz...]

A better example, I think, would be between an atheist and a theist.

Right. It's not stupid to believe in god, just most probably factually wrong.

 

[Greebo]

Right. It's not stupid to believe in god, just most probably factually wrong.

Yes - there aren't any definites, hence my highlighting.

To expand my thinking, Brexiteers believe they are right due to immigrants, faceless EU bureaucrats for example. Remainers believe they are right as movement of goods and people is easy for examples.

They are both opinions. As with the theist / atheist example. One in each pair, in my opinion, has a greater probability of being true.

 

[Wudang]

A better example, I think, would be between an atheist and a theist.

Or maybe people who trust medicine versus alt-medicine. There are a number of different articles floating around about how people can find themselves believing sheer nonsense about chakras, homeopathy whatever. There are plenty of people around spouting nonsense enough about how if you just believe (/come together) then you'll be healed (/achieve new better trade treaties) and sneering at experts who point out that everything we know about health (/trade) indicates that this is all bollocks. And we hear similar "but you can't really know that", "have you tried it?", "people managed fine like this 200 years ago".
And some of these can be otherwise apparently highly intelligent.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Yeah but do we really want to start pulling at that string? "Did not vote" has won the majority of elections in history. I'm pretty sure here in American he's been elected President every single time at least.

In countries that don't have mandatory voting you just sort of have to accept that democracy is only for people who bother to show up.

When it comes to an actual election. Sure. If you don't vote you go with the new government. But when it comes to a non binding referendum in my opinion not voting can be equalled to accepting the status quo.
Why should an elected government listen to a 17% minority when it comes to international policy?

 

[wobs]

Or maybe people who trust medicine versus alt-medicine. There are a number of different articles floating around about how people can find themselves believing sheer nonsense about chakras, homeopathy whatever. There are plenty of people around spouting nonsense enough about how if you just believe (/come together) then you'll be healed (/achieve new better trade treaties) and sneering at experts who point out that everything we know about health (/trade) indicates that this is all bollocks. And we hear similar "but you can't really know that", "have you tried it?", "people managed fine like this 200 years ago".
And some of these can be otherwise apparently highly intelligent.

A lot of this is down to investing emotion into something. Once someone has invested sufficient emotion into an issue, it is very difficult to persuade them otherwise.

I've had this with a friend who is edging towards the anti-vaxxer standpoint, having read sources like natural news. I've also had it with a Brexiter who is adamant that the UK pays more into the EU than any other country, and they need us more than they need us as a result.

Both seem impervious to evidence.

 

[wobs]

I never said that every chancellor was stupid. Please don't try to attribute to me things I never wrote.

Economic forecasts are woefully inaccurate but if they're the best available that's what chancellors have to use - fully expecting (from past experience) that the forecasts will turn out to be wrong.

For deciding which way to vote on a matter as important as Brexit, economic forecasts are completely untrustworthy. You're better advised to base your decision on the history of the organization, its current rules, and the pronouncements of the current leaders on their intentions for its future development.

Once again, you misinterpret economic forecasts.

Even Theresa May recently pointed out that economic forecasts are not predictions.

A good example is the Millenium Bug: People forecast dire consequences, so huge resources were poured into sorting it out. Result? Nothing happened. Why? Because people acted on the warnings.

Its a similar situation with economic forecasts. Various sources have pointed out various negative consequences regarding Brexit (especially no deal). What the Government then does is try to mitigate the issues that cause these dire results, so they aren't as bad as they could be.

The worrying bit of course is that so far the Government has been woefully under prepared for a no deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...regular-gridlock-congestion-hard-brexit-trade

Also, I was at a conference a couple of months ago, to find out what Defra were doing. There is still a lot they don't know, beyond transposing EU law into UK law. EG. The Irish border is still a big unknown, there are costs that could in incurred by all in the UK in my sector in March 2019, and many unknowns for all.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I categorise them as hilarious, mainly, but I'm undecided as to whether they're mostly grossly uninformed or just plain dumb.

But there's a difference between believing that the earth is FLAT against all evidence, and having a different opinion about international alliances.

Again, ignore the explanation - that the style of argument is to ignore facts and simply change tack to a different assertion - and instead claim, absent any evidence, that the issue is that they have a different opinion about international alliances.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

To expand on my referendum point. One of the reasons the UK is in the mess it is today is because the Tories promised to treat a non-binding referendum as an actual election.

They could have taken the result and seen that a significant minority of the british voters wanted to leave the EU, with a large undecided part as well. On that basis they could have set a party policy, looking at the actual economic costs, sorting trough which of the leave campaign's promises were empty (all money will go to NHS, the EU will give us everything we want in return for nothing) and which problems leave totally glossed over (like the NI border) and then made a comprehensive package with which they would go the EU and then call an election on that platform.
It would not have ignored the 'will of the people', but at the same time would have been an actual competent plan.

Now, they have nothing and the main proponents of the leave campaign have contributed nothing to the actual process either.

But who knows, maybe an uninformed 'it will all turn out all right and better than before' is an actual basis for international relations. Time will tell.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

To expand on my referendum point. One of the reasons the UK is in the mess it is today is because the Tories promised to treat a non-binding referendum as an actual election.

They could have taken the result and seen that a significant minority of the british voters wanted to leave the EU, with a large undecided part as well. On that basis they could have set a party policy, looking at the actual economic costs, sorting trough which of the leave campaign's promises were empty (all money will go to NHS, the EU will give us everything we want in return for nothing) and which problems leave totally glossed over (like the NI border) and then made a comprehensive package with which they would go the EU and then call an election on that platform.
It would not have ignored the 'will of the people', but at the same time would have been an actual competent plan.

Now, they have nothing and the main proponents of the leave campaign have contributed nothing to the actual process either.

But who knows, maybe an uninformed 'it will all turn out all right and better than before' is an actual basis for international relations. Time will tell.

Well I disagree slightly. If they wanted to do that then they should have made that their manifesto pledge and explained to people that was the plan but they were quite clear that the vote was to decide whether we stayed in the EU or left not to start looking into the possibility of maybe doing that in the future.

Of course, the correct way to do it would have been to have the internal battle internally and then decide that Tory party policy was or wasnt to leave the EU and allow people to vote for them on a ticket with that answer in a General Election.

Of course no party who had Leave the EU as a manifesto pledge ever got anywhere near forming a government and therefore Leavers had to manipulate the democratic system in order to get the result they wanted.

If Nigel Farage worries about the will of the people then perhaps he should listen to the people who told him to sod off whenever he stood for a job as an MP.

 

[Belz...]

Again, ignore the explanation - that the style of argument is to ignore facts and simply change tack to a different assertion - and instead claim, absent any evidence, that the issue is that they have a different opinion about international alliances.

No, the issue here is that you absolutely want to paint all of the Leave camp as people who ignore facts. I'm telling you that this is not the case.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Well I disagree slightly. If they wanted to do that then they should have made that their manifesto pledge and explained to people that was the plan but they were quite clear that the vote was to decide whether we stayed in the EU or left not to start looking into the possibility of maybe doing that in the future.

That's basically what I tried to argue. The Tories in no way had to promise to immediately follow the referendum. After all, that is (afaik) not how a referendum works in the UK.
But they did, and thus they ended up today with a pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

 

[Belz...]

That's basically what I tried to argue. The Tories in no way had to promise to immediately follow the referendum. After all, that is (afaik) not how a referendum works in the UK.
But they did, and thus they ended up today with a pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Yeah I think we all agree on that. They should've used the referendum as leverage to get some changes done, perhaps? But certainly not treat it as binding.