Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Belz...]

Doing something risky because you don't understand the risks and are wilfully ignorant is not just 'less informed' it's stupid and reckless.

What's "risky" about Brexit? There's a heavy price to pay, but it's not like the UK's going to sink below the waves or something.

There's no point in defending the original claim. He should've said "uninformed".

 

[ceptimus]

Because we were in favour of them and agreed to them, you absolute [redacted].

Ha!

We were against the changes in the Lisbon treaty proposal - as were France, Denmark, and Ireland. Some of the changes involved removing the requirement for unanimity when voting (a.k.a. veto) and replacing it with qualified majority and double majority voting for most votes.

The EU then removed these contentious clauses from the treaty and slipped them in anyway by the back door of amending existing treaties.

Ireland held a referendum but were required to vote again because they gave an unacceptable 'No' answer to the EU.

 

[Amazer]

What's "risky" about Brexit? There's a heavy price to pay, but it's not like the UK's going to sink below the waves or something.

There's no point in defending the original claim. He should've said "uninformed".

I'll stick with idiots... no sense in beating around the bush

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again that just invalided like... everything ever done under a democracy ever of all time.

Yep lies meant to gain votes are of no consequence after you win. that is the fundamentals of democracy. You vote in binding votes based on lies and misinformation on vague promises and no matter how many people get hurt or killed you accept the results.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What's "risky" about Brexit?

Jesus?!? People will die because of the heightened austerity brought about by a tanking economy. People will lose their jobs. People will go hungry. People will commit suicide.

These are REAL things and it's why I get quite upset by tools like certain posters here and certain politicians who don't take it seriously and just see it as a political point scoring football and a game to be 'won'

Did you really ask that question?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ha!

We were against the changes in the Lisbon treaty proposal - as were France, Denmark, and Ireland. Some of the changes involved removing the requirement for unanimity when voting (a.k.a. veto) and replacing it with qualified majority and double majority voting for most votes.

The EU then removed these contentious clauses from the treaty and slipped them in anyway by the back door of amending existing treaties.

Ireland held a referendum but were required to vote again because they gave an unacceptable 'No' answer to the EU.

So we voted in favour of something after we negotiated a deal we were happy with. Jesus H Christ.

 

[abaddon]

It's a veto that we couldn't use or were pressured not to use. Another example of EU doublespeak. Why didn't we veto the Maastricht or Lisbon treaties?

Like hell. Nothing prevented the UK from exercising it's veto. It is not doublespeak. You had a veto and chose not to use it. YOU chose not to use it. Nobody else.

Why didn't you veto Maastricht and Lisbon? Ask your own political leaders. It had nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with YOU. You do not get to foist responsibility for your own leaders upour claim that on all and sundry. You do not get to claim that the veto you chose not to use is somehow everyone else's fault. Grow a pair.

Why didn't other EU countries opposed to EU changes use their veto?

How politically naive is that.

Some countries actually had referendums and the people voted against the changes - but in the usual EU way, they were asked to vote again because they voted the "wrong way" on their first try.

Or because their opinions changed. Is it your claim that opinions can never change? How very Victorian British empire of you. And we all know how that crap turned out.

 

[Belz...]

Jesus?!? People will die because of the heightened austerity brought about by a tanking economy. People will lose their jobs. People will go hungry. People will commit suicide.

That's true every time a nation makes a major decision and we rarely know the exact impacts of those. What you list above, assuming it's correct, is exactly what I said: There's a heavy price to pay.

 

[The Moog]

...

There's no point in defending the original claim. He should've said "uninformed".

Misinformed.. might be more accurate.

 

[Tolls]

Ireland held a referendum but were required to vote again because they gave an unacceptable 'No' answer to the EU.

Ireland renegotiated the parts of the Nice and Lisbon treaties, getting the particular contentious wording changed for each of them that caused the "No" vote for each one.

For Nice (wiki):
"One of the reasons the No side had called for its rejection was that it would affect Irish neutrality. When the Nice Treaty was put to a second vote, the wording of the constitutional amendment excluded participation in common defence."

For Lisbon there was much haggling, in an attempt to avoid having to go through a whole new round of negotiations with everyone, but the Irish came away with stuff they were happy with (something around the structure of the Commission? was one).

And clearly the electorate were happy as, in both cases over 60% voted yes the second time round.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's true every time a nation makes a major decision and we rarely know the exact impacts of those. What you list above, assuming it's correct, is exactly what I said: There's a heavy price to pay.

We very rarely if ever make decisions of the scale of leaving the EU though... and if you are aware there will be a heavy price to pay then why would you then ask what the risk is?

Any examples of stupid you want to give?

 

[Belz...]

We very rarely if ever make decisions of the scale of leaving the EU though...

I'll agree that this particular decision is pretty damned impactful, and before voting on this stuff people should be more informed. But I try to be realistic: if people don't bother to be informed before voting for their PM, they're not going to put much more effort for any other vote or opinion. Doesn't make them stupid. Most people simply don't take the time to inform themselves because that's just how humans are: we tend to go through life confirming our existing beliefs by cherry-picking because we prioritise other things. I don't think that's stupid. It's just natural. Now, once you _are_ informed and you still make the bonkers decision, that's another matter. Doest that make any sense?

and if you are aware there will be a heavy price to pay then why would you then ask what the risk is?

Because the two aren't the same thing.

Any examples of stupid you want to give?

I don't know, check out the Darwin award for examples.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What's "risky" about Brexit? There's a heavy price to pay, but it's not like the UK's going to sink below the waves or something.

The risk is precisely that there is a heavy price to pay, and we don't know how heavy it's going to be. It may not be an existential risk, but risk of financial loss is still risk.

Dave

 

[Lothian]

It's a veto that we couldn't use or were pressured not to use. Another example of EU doublespeak. Why didn't we veto the Maastricht or Lisbon treaties?

Why didn't other EU countries opposed to EU changes use their veto? Some countries actually had referendums and the people voted against the changes - butin the usual EU way, they were asked to vote again because they voted the "wrong way" on their first try. realized the economic consequences of voting no were to leave the EU. No country was stupid enough to follow through on that.

Fixed.

 

[Belz...]

The risk is precisely that there is a heavy price to pay, and we don't know how heavy it's going to be. It may not be an existential risk, but risk of financial loss is still risk.

I suppose you could interpret it that way. But since the 70s there's been an independance movement in Quebec that damn near voted 'leave' back in 1995. It would've been a terrible cost that we'd probably still be reeling from today, but I wouldn't call it stupid even if I don't agree with it. Quebecois wanting their own country is not stupid, even if they don't quite understand the consequences.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I suppose you could interpret it that way. But since the 70s there's been an independance movement in Quebec that damn near voted 'leave' back in 1995. It would've been a terrible cost that we'd probably still be reeling from today, but I wouldn't call it stupid even if I don't agree with it. Quebecois wanting their own country is not stupid, even if they don't quite understand the consequences.

I'm not calling it stupid; I'm simply saying that there is a finite likelihood of severe financial loss associated with leaving the EU, and that this corresponds to a reasonable definition of the word "risk". The likelihood seems quite high, therefore it's reasonable to say that Brexit is "risky".

Dave

 

[Belz...]

I'm not calling it stupid

I was refering to the poster to whom I originally responded.

I'm simply saying that there is a finite likelihood of severe financial loss associated with leaving the EU, and that this corresponds to a reasonable definition of the word "risk".

Haven't I agreed with you on that already?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I was refering to the poster to whom I originally responded.



Haven't I agreed with you on that already?

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?

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?

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

About the only defence I can muster for the Leavers is that on the balance of probabilities many of them were probably taking bigger risks with OTHER people's welfare than their own - so stupid AND/OR callous.

 

[The Moog]

The risk is precisely that there is a heavy price to pay, and we don't know how heavy it's going to be. It may not be an existential risk, but risk of financial loss is still risk.

Dave

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.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Now, once you _are_ informed and you still make the bonkers decision, that's another matter.

Perhaps you missed the meat of the Brexit debate understandably if you aren't in the UK but that's pretty much what happened.

People were repeatedly told that the Leave promises were impossible to deliver and that the EU would not agree to what they seemed to be suggesting. They deliberately went out of their way to dismiss these warnings and make the bonkers decision anyway.

We were told to ignore the experts because people were tired of listening to people that knew what they were talking about.

Now others are trying to claim that people knew all along that the original promises were lies and voted to leave anyway.

I think colloquially 'stupid' definitely fits the bill but whichever adjective you want to use - stupid, misinformed, uninformed, wilfully ignorant, deceitful, lying, callous none of them are exactly very positive.

And the key difference between this decision and others is that in an election you are voting for someone to understand the issues and represent you on your behalf. In this vote the politicians were asking the people what they wanted.