Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[ceptimus]

Ah, more Brexiteer economic illiteracy.

More casual insults and eye rolls from someone on the losing side of the Brexit debate.

Did all those insults about the winning side being stupid / old / racist / illiterate help you? I think it had the opposite effect: people don't like being continually insulted and are inclined to vote against those hurling the insults when they get the opportunity.

 

[The Don]

More casual insults and eye rolls from someone on the losing side of the Brexit debate.

Did all those insults about the winning side being stupid / old / racist / illiterate help you? I think it had the opposite effect: people don't like being continually insulted and are inclined to vote against those hurling the insults when they get the opportunity.

Rather than clutch at your pearls, why not address the argument.

Brexit of any flavour is economically damaging. UK annual losses in GDP are already orders of magnitude greater than the UK's net contribution - and we haven't even left yet.

I haven't yet seen any reasoned economic argument in favour of Brexit.

 

[lomiller]

More casual insults and eye rolls from someone on the losing side of the Brexit debate.

Did all those insults about the winning side being stupid / old / racist / illiterate help you? I think it had the opposite effect: people don't like being continually insulted and are inclined to vote against those hurling the insults when they get the opportunity.

If you don’t like what people say about you, it’s far better to fix your faults than it is to whine about how terrible people are for pointing them out.

 

[Lothian]

More casual insults and eye rolls from someone on the losing side of the Brexit debate.

It is not casual. It is carefully observed. Remember when German car dealers 'would make sure that the EU gave us all the benefits with none of the cost.' When £350m a week would come back to the UK even though we didn't pay that much. When it was argued that we could keep all the money we agreed to pay the EU and that they would still give us a great deal. Remember when we were told we could have free trade with the EU and better deals with the rest of the world.
The only thing casual are the crass comments by brexiteers who know that their supporters will lap up absolutely everything they say about the impossible utopia they sell, irrespective of how nonsensical it is.

 

[Garrison]

It is not casual. It is carefully observed. Remember when German car dealers 'would make sure that the EU gave us all the benefits with none of the cost.' When £350m a week would come back to the UK even though we didn't pay that much. When it was argued that we could keep all the money we agreed to pay the EU and that they would still give us a great deal. Remember when we were told we could have free trade with the EU and better deals with the rest of the world.
The only thing casual are the crass comments by brexiteers who know that their supporters will lap up absolutely everything they say about the impossible utopia they sell, irrespective of how nonsensical it is.

Its this notion that the EU is somehow holding the UK back from getting all these great trade deals, that Britain all by itself is more influential and economically powerful than the EU as a bloc. They look at the way Trump negotiates trade deals with the rest of the world and assume Britain will be the exception and that countries like India and China will be falling over themselves to give us generous deals. Of course we must remember that there are a great many Brexiteers who could care less about the economy so long as we see the back of all those nasty foreigners working in the NHS...

 

[angrysoba]

We always paid more into the EU then we got back. Therefore, when we no longer have to pay the EU we can choose to directly pay the farmers exactly the same amount as they formerly got indirectly, and there will still be surplus money left over that can fund the NHS or whatever else the politicians choose to spend it on.

Yes, but those farmers are *likely* going to have more difficulty accessing the European market. The same will *likely* be true of other industries, and investors will *likely* see the UK as a less desirable location for investment. That is when the money we pay into the EU will start to look worthwhile after all.

 

[ceptimus]

It is not casual. It is carefully observed. Remember when German car dealers 'would make sure that the EU gave us all the benefits with none of the cost.' When £350m a week would come back to the UK even though we didn't pay that much. When it was argued that we could keep all the money we agreed to pay the EU and that they would still give us a great deal. Remember when we were told we could have free trade with the EU and better deals with the rest of the world.
The only thing casual are the crass comments by brexiteers who know that their supporters will lap up absolutely everything they say about the impossible utopia they sell, irrespective of how nonsensical it is.

Keep attacking your straw men if it makes you feel better. Most Leave voters I know never expected utopia: they were given a clear choice between remaining or leaving and decided they wanted to leave. No sensible person believes the wild claims made by politicians - we discounted all the wild claims of the leave campaigners just as we discounted the wilder excess of the project fear campaigners. Once we've left we will be able to assess the accuracy of the claims made by both sides. If you're honest you'll admit that many of project fear's claims have already been proven false, and I'm confident that a couple of years from now there will be a whole lot more.

The really good thing to come out of Brexit so far is to show all the anti-democrats that their efforts to overturn a democratic decision have been futile. They've done lasting harm to the country by delaying the process, but ultimately have been defeated. Good riddance to the likes of Grieve, Soubry, Swinson, and their pals. One can hope that their fate will serve as a lesson to any future anti-democratic politicians.

 

[SezMe]

...No sensible person believes the wild claims made by politicians -

I''ll not contest that claim but note that there are A LOT of nonsensical voters. Trump's rise in the USA provides irrefutable evidence. The well-informed voters are not the issue; the low-information voters are. Those same voters are the very ones most susceptible to fear mongering and claims that appeal primarily to emotional biases.

Hard cold logic rarely visits the voting booth.

 

[lomiller]

all the wild claims of the leave campaigners just as we discounted the wilder excess of the project fear campaigners.

This makes no sense. If the Brexit campaign didn’t think the lies would make a difference why were they lying in the first place?

just as we discounted the wilder excess of the project fear campaigners.

Most of those “wilder claims” are actually turning out to be too optimistic because even on the Remain side no one seriously thought a no deal Brexit was under consideration.

 

[Lothian]

. No sensible person believes the wild claims made by politicians - we discounted all the wild claims of the leave campaigners just as we discounted the wilder excess of the project fear campaigners.

Yet you believe the wild claims of the government, 3 governments ago that the referendum result had to be implemented when it is clear in law that it was advisory.

Seems to me you pick and choose what to believe as it suits.

 

[Lothian]

Keep attacking your straw men if it makes you feel better. .

The straw men were claims by those on your side of the fence. I admit they were bollocks but there was a reason they were advanced as arguments . They knew the less educated would believe them, a fact borne out by analysis of the brexit referendum voters.

 

[ceptimus]

Yet you believe the wild claims of the government, 3 governments ago that the referendum result had to be implemented when it is clear in law that it was advisory.

Seems to me you pick and choose what to believe as it suits.

We've gone over this before. A promise made by a government in the form of a leaflet sent to every household in the country is a much more binding promise than those promises made by the campaigning groups on either side of the debate.

We expect campaigners on both sides of an issue for a referendum or election to make wild promises: if we're being generous we say they're exaggerating - that the promises aren't really promises - they're mere aspirations; if we're being harsher we say they're lying. The side that expect to lose typically make wilder promises than the side that expects to win: the losers, after all, will never have to deliver on their promises. The Brexit referendum was unusual in this regard in that the remain campaigners made no promises of any improvements from remaining - they only made threats about the dire consequences of leaving (aka project fear). So even though remain expected to win, they didn't think they'd have to deliver anything. As a result, their claims were even bigger lies than those of the leave campaigners.

The sorts of promises/threats/aspirations made by campaigners are very different from the promise made by a government that will still be in power after a referendum. When a government promises, "this is your decision; the government will implement what you decide" then voters rightly expect the government to keep that promise and will punish very harshly any foolish MPs that attempt to renege on it.

 

[Darat]

We've gone over this before. A promise made by a government in the form of a leaflet sent to every household in the country is a much more binding promise than those promises made by the campaigning groups on either side of the debate.

We expect campaigners on both sides of an issue for a referendum or election to make wild promises: if we're being generous we say they're exaggerating - that the promises aren't really promises - they're mere aspirations; if we're being harsher we say they're lying. The side that expect to lose typically make wilder promises than the side that expects to win: the losers, after all, will never have to deliver on their promises.

This is very different from the promise made by a government that will still be in power after a referendum. When a government promises, "this is your decision; the government will implement what you decide" then voters rightly expect the government to keep that promise and will punish very harshly any foolish MPs that attempt to renege on it.

All you are doing is confirming Lothian's point that you pick and choose what is a "promise" based in whether you think it supports what you want.

 

[ceptimus]

All you are doing is confirming Lothian's point that you pick and choose what is a "promise" based in whether you think it supports what you want.

Wrong again. I gave a very clear and logical explanation of the differences between the two categories of promise.

What part of my explanation didn't you understand, or what aspect of it do you disagree with?

There was no 'picking and choosing' involved. The two categories of promise are as different as chalk and cheese.

 

[Lothian]

Wrong again. I gave a very clear and logical explanation of the differences between the two categories of promise.

What part of my explanation didn't you understand, or what aspect of it do you disagree with?

There was no 'picking and choosing' involved. The two categories of promise are as different as chalk and cheese.

A promise is a promise. Your view that certain promises can be ignored and others can't is cherry picking. You convenienty ignore all the leaver promises and predictions while criticising the remainer ones as false, and demand that subsequent governments stick by the policy of previous ones. Hypocrisy at its most obvious.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's simple

1) the losing side doesn't have to fulfil it's promises, unless it was David Cameron's promise that still has to be fulfilled despite losing and standing down

2) if you don't think you're going to win it's permissible to lie and then abandon your claims and promises if you do win.

 

[Ian Osborne]

No sensible person believes the wild claims made by politicians - we discounted all the wild claims of the leave campaigners.

I find it fascinating that now the Brexshiteers' lies have been exposed, its die-hard supporters claim they knew they were being played but voted Leave anyway. Do you realise how stupid that makes you look?

 

[Steve]

I find it fascinating that now the Brexshiteers' lies have been exposed, its die-hard supporters claim they knew they were being played but voted Leave anyway. Do you realise how stupid that makes you look?

Pot/kettle.

 

[catsmate]

Rather than clutch at your pearls, why not address the argument.

Brexit of any flavour is economically damaging. UK annual losses in GDP are already orders of magnitude greater than the UK's net contribution - and we haven't even left yet.

I haven't yet seen any reasoned economic argument in favour of Brexit.

There isn't one. The Brexiteers wouldn't touch a serious economic analysis with the proverbial pole because it's obvious it would destroy their house of cards and possibly alert the people that they've been lied to.

 

[catsmate]

It is not casual. It is carefully observed. Remember when German car dealers 'would make sure that the EU gave us all the benefits with none of the cost.' When £350m a week would come back to the UK even though we didn't pay that much. When it was argued that we could keep all the money we agreed to pay the EU and that they would still give us a great deal. Remember when we were told we could have free trade with the EU and better deals with the rest of the world.
The only thing casual are the crass comments by brexiteers who know that their supporters will lap up absolutely everything they say about the impossible utopia they sell, irrespective of how nonsensical it is.

Brexiteers have the attention span of the stereotypical goldfish; they're too busy drinking in the latest lies to remember all the previous lies.