Judging by the luck i get on my birthday, i expect total economic collapse.
To be honest, i don't really care. I didn't vote, because there was no "Can I Just Stop Paying For Everyone Else, Not Just Everyone in Europe" option.
General / Off-Topic Are we brexiting?
- Thread starter FuzzySpider
- Start date
- Status
Judging by the luck i get on my birthday, i expect total economic collapse.
To be honest, i don't really care. I didn't vote, because there was no "Can I Just Stop Paying For Everyone Else, Not Just Everyone in Europe" option.
Any deals made with Trump will likely become pretty worthless once the inevitable happens and he is rejected by the American people. A resurgent Democratic party will be looking to rebuild relations with the free nations of the EU. Also, I wouldn't rely on Trump to be nice - his throwing the GCHQ under the bus purely to avoid saying "I was wrong" over his wire tapping claims proves that he doesn't actually care about relations with the UK at all.
As for India? Interesting idea. The problem there is that they already have a trade deal with the UK through the EU, and a new trade deal will not favour the UK as the UK has a much worse bargaining position on its own. Furthermore, India want freedom of movements for its citizens. Can you see the racist element of the UK, and the likes of the Daily Mail, going for that? They're hostile enough to white Polish people who stay here for a few years while they pick fruit. Entire Indian families showing up will give UKIP a stroke.
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
And my wife's.
And I expect the GBP to take another hit - which will make FDev shares good looking. I'm no professional investor/mogul, but I guess I will 'scoop' a couplpe of FDEV shares. Not many, as the face value is quite high.
Last edited:
And my wife's.
And I expect the GBP to take another hit - which will make FDev shares good looking. I'm no professional investor/mogul, but I guess I will 'scoop' a couplpe of FDEV shares. Not many, as the face value is quite high.
Heck, as a Finn I could just do the same. I expect the exchange rate to be very favorable in a week or two.
Interesting article on the psychology of political positions and how that interacts with facts.
TLDR:
1) Motivated reasoning: rooting for a team changes your perception of the world
2) People who are the most well-informed about politics are often the most stubborn about it
3) Evolution has left us with an “immune system” for uncomfortable thoughts.
4) The argument that’s most convincing to you is not convincing to your ideological opponents
5) Many people seem unashamed of their prejudices
6) Fear has a powerful influence on political opinion
7) Social norms that protect against prejudice can change in the blink of an eye
The article was from the US perspective (i.e. about Trump) but for our "Brexit" purposes items 1-4 are very appropriate with 6 also being interesting.
The items apply to both sides of the debate (especially 1,2 and 4).
It also helps explain why both sides are incredulous that the other can't see what, to them, is right in front of them.
On the basis that knowing about our psychological "blind spots" helps us avoid them I would recommend many of the regular posters on this thread have a read.
Also, if number 2 is also true in reverse, some of the commenters on this thread must be some of the most well informed people in the world!
TLDR:
1) Motivated reasoning: rooting for a team changes your perception of the world
2) People who are the most well-informed about politics are often the most stubborn about it
3) Evolution has left us with an “immune system” for uncomfortable thoughts.
4) The argument that’s most convincing to you is not convincing to your ideological opponents
5) Many people seem unashamed of their prejudices
6) Fear has a powerful influence on political opinion
7) Social norms that protect against prejudice can change in the blink of an eye
The article was from the US perspective (i.e. about Trump) but for our "Brexit" purposes items 1-4 are very appropriate with 6 also being interesting.
The items apply to both sides of the debate (especially 1,2 and 4).
It also helps explain why both sides are incredulous that the other can't see what, to them, is right in front of them.
On the basis that knowing about our psychological "blind spots" helps us avoid them I would recommend many of the regular posters on this thread have a read.
Also, if number 2 is also true in reverse, some of the commenters on this thread must be some of the most well informed people in the world!
This becomes circular.
The argument most convincing to you is not convincing to your ideological opponents.
But...
The argument most convincing to your ideological opponents is not convincing to you.
So politics can often devolve into people just restating the same arguments over and over and over. There are two methods of preventing this:
1. Facts. The simple presentation of fact can, and at one time would, derail a bad argument. Of course we're in the post-truth age and facts themselves are considered to be political positions (belief in global warming, stating that welfare cuts are creating more poverty etc).
2. Acceptance of the inability to convince, and instead focus on accommodation. This is what Tony Blair did in a pretty masterful way during his tenure as Prime Minister. He was a center-left Prime Minister who both increased spending on things like health, welfare, science, and public services but also didn't terrify the hell out of capitalists, corporations, businesses, and the moderate right wing.
Yes, but there's also a lesson in it.
If you are debating with someone who see's the world differently from you at a basic level, the facts and figures and arguments that you find compelling are much less compelling to you.
In order to try to "win" the argument (as in convince them that your course of action is appropriate rather than your world view is appropriate) it can be more effective to couch your argument in terms of facts, figures and arguments that they will (but you might not) find compelling.
So rather than argue that foreign aid is a morally good thing to reduce human suffering, point out that it can reduce the pressures that drive economic migrants to the UK.
It's not quite the same as accommodation (which is modifying what you are going to do to appease others) more convincing others that what you want to do is a good thing even if their reasons are not the same as yours.
Wouldn't work.
The argument has been made many times that welfare spending creates a better society for all, leading to lower crime and more economic activity. People still demand that "scroungers" suffer poverty.
The argument has been made and proven that prisons should rehabilitate and not punish, as criminals often stay as criminals. Yet we still have the Daily Mail demanding that prisons remain concrete torture cubes and even had Chris Graying taking prisoners books away and cutting funding for prison education schemes.
Facts are useless. Read this, you'll find it very interesting.
https://georgelakoff.com/2016/11/22...he-polls-failed-and-what-the-majority-can-do/
The way to combat what you described is to avoid fact and use the appeals to base emotions that are used in this way.
So the argument against Brexit becomes:
"Why are the brexit cowards determined to destroy British greatness? Britain should not give up its position as the master of Europe and sink into obscurity, we will not be able to force the countries of Europe to do what we want outside of Europe."
Or:
"Britain is the economic and military powerhouse that all of Europe depends on. Leaving it means looking like cowards in the face of the world."
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
Perhaps, but this approach is also like the cycle of violence - it condemns everyone to an endless cycle of lies and propaganda.
The alternative is to stop voting, or at least stop referendums. I mean, look...
Yesterday:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-plant-options-post-brexit-amid-trade-threats
Today:
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN16S23P
It's not even hypothetical anymore. The bad news is daily, although not much of the UK media dares to report it. The UK is going to become a poorer and lesser country for this, and is going to potentially lose Scotland as well.
Talk of soverignty is meaningless when you consider what a trade treaty is, and how uncompetitive future trade deals will be compared to the one through the EU. Talk of the EU bending over backwards to impress London are exposed as lies.
Brexit is an objectively poor idea, at least in the current form. Yet on it goes. Because emotion and appealing to fear and anger works better than intelligence and appealing to empathy and compassion.
To continue with "project fear" and report facts and cite expert opinion is to invite disaster. This applies to other threats like global warming or whether or not all Muslims are terrorists as well as with Brexit. Reason can't defeat populism.
Last edited:
Clearly it's not a cure all!
Sometimes people will just be opposed to certain ideas.I had a conversation with my mum the other day, and via a roundabout route we ended up talking about the impact of automation (and AI) on future work prospects.
I said that because many jobs may disappear in the future the old model of working for money to buy things might have to change and we might need to move to some form of universal income or possibly the functional equivilent of universal basic entitlement to certain goods (food, shelter, healthcare etc)
She couldn't get her head around the idea
"but we'll have to tax those that work to pay for those that don't!" - "no mum, we'll have to devise a way of raising tax that isn't based on an individual's income"
"what will people do all day?!" - "I don't know mum, what do you do all day?" (she's retired and basically lunches with her friends and does hobbies)
"it's morally bad for people not to work" - "really? I though the reward for the morally good was to go to heaven? are you saying that there are jobs in heaven?"
No matter how I tried to put it, she was adamant that people must work and any failure to find work is because they are just not trying hard enough.
I don't think she'll ever change her views, and these are the people who will vote against any sort of "handouts" no matter how strong the evidence that it helps them.
Exactly, so no. The world has actually gotten a lot more decent and tolerant in comparison to earlier decades. Giving up now in the face of fake news and propaganda is not the way. What we need is to redouble our efforts in education and strict quality standards in media & sanctions for spreading lies and propaganda.
I agree on the theory, but I found that often, what is education for some is propaganda for others. And while we may stay true to our beliefs, morals, ethics, knowledge, and so on, if we're really honest with ourselves, the confronting side may have valid reasons -from their own POV- to dismiss those principles of ours as propaganda. We often do exactly the same, for reasons that we sincerely believe to be legit. If you discuss with a religious fanatic, or a far right activist, you'll often find yourself utterly unable to properly debate, because there's simply no common ground.
I believe that too often we try hard to pass on our opinions as being the most reasonable and universally acceptable, and this is why it fails. Defending them as simple convictions with benefits might be more humble, and yet more efficient.
You really do believe that the people who voted to Leave are pig-ignorant, don't you? Speaking for myself, I don't believe that line of reasoning would have made the slightest bit of difference to the referendum. More, it's sheer inanity would probably have pushed people to the other side.
For someone so concerned about propaganda, you are peddling an awful lot of it and have done throughout these discussions.
Be clear: Organisations might do something. Experts forecast something. Governments might do something else. These are not facts. They are not definitely going to happen. They deserve to be considered, but are not accurate predictions of the future.
This is why you still can't get your head around the famous "people have had enough of experts" comment. Just because someone is well educated in a topic, it doesn't make them a soothsayer. Just because the media reports that a company hints an action, doesn't mean that action will come. You yourself projected a £200bn shortfall in government receipts from the total collapse of the financial services industry in the UK. Fact? No.
An an example, compare and contrast two factual statements:
"Migration is a net benefit to the UK" and
"All migration is not a net benefit to the UK"
And yet someone making a case for selective migration to the UK is frequently shouted down by people now concerned about lies, fake news and propaganda.
Precisely. At it's root - it seems that Remainers either a) want to stay part of the European community, because being part of that wider collective is appealing or b) are concerned about the risk of the loss of the trade arrangements. But, this portrayal of the Leave camp as "anti-factual" betrays a lack of understanding of what a "fact" is, which makes the rest of the argument underwhelming.
But as I've said previously; that the Remain argument didn't talk about the future of Europe, the evolution of our relationship in it or really any beneficial case at all other than how much of our trade is done with the EU-block was very, very telling. More often than not, it seemed (to me) that the most compelling reason put forward to remain in the EU was that it might stop the Conservatives from enacting drastic policies.
Using economics to back up what are essentially value arguments is where the wheels have come off this bus.
Nobody can tell the future, there is always uncertainty, random elements and "black swan" events. That is very true.
However it is possible to look at data and then extrapolate.
Weather is the ultimate in hard to predict systems, it is only partly understood, chaotic (in the mathematical sense) and extremely complex.
Nobody can say the exact temperature, wind speed and rainfall on a particular spot tomorrow, let alone in a week or month or year.
However, experts in weather forecasting, along with their computers, models and other tools, can give probability distributions of those values.
They can say things like "it's 15C and raining now, there is a 90% chance it will be warmer and wetter in a weeks time".
In the same manner economists can make forecasts.
If tariffs and, more importantly, non-tariff barriers go up between a country and the 27 geographically closest countries who make up around 50% of that country's trade, it is reasonable to forecast that trade will become more, not less difficult.
Leave has not come up with a single reason that stands up to scrutiny to explain why the above analysis is wrong.
The closest they have come is to say that we will have a free trade deal, which only deals with tariffs. TM has explicitly, by saying the UK will not submit to the ECJ in any areas, ruled out any deal that reduces non-tariff barriers to the level they are inside the EU (i.e. as to near zero as possible).
Don't be fooled that the predictions were wrong because some of the more lurid ones have not come true yet. Remember that the predictions were made on the basis that article 50 would be served almost immediately after the result (as some wanted). That did not happen. Credit where credit is due, TM has managed to step away from that scenario and at least given everyone some time to get organised, but expect turbulence as the negotiations go up and down and the probability of the UK ending up in a better economic position at the end of the process are extremely slim.
Much like the chances of August snow in London, it might happen but you wouldn't want to bet your house on it (which is sort of what we are doing).
Because Leave is based on anti-intellectualism and mistrust of experts, not sound judgement.
Todays Brexit news:
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/03...ith-heineken-sees-sol-amstel-and-tiger-pulled
Remember; as you say, things are going bad and we've not even announced the leave.
Last edited:
Even if this is true it's still only about what is being lost through leaving the EU trade element
You also have to consider that we will also be free to setup new trade deals where we couldn't before, and look to new industries to excel in that may not have been so lucrative whilst still in the EU, all of which might work in our favour if effort is put into it
No one knows yet, it's very early days, and whilst everyone is trying to draw negative conclusions before anything has taken shape, all we have is this doom and gloom debate which is flimsy at best
Time will tell, but until steps have been taken we just don't know where it will end
It's done, the decision has been made, there is no point dwelling on what could of, should of, how about we start thinking about what positive steps could be made to strengthen our economy without an EU membership, there are plenty of other prosperous countries in the world that are not part of the EU membership
Last edited:
I wonder if the London attacks by an islamic terrorist will delay the triggering of the article 50 or si the policy will follow its natural course. Perhaps a kind of "national mourning" will delay a few days ?
Last edited:
- Status