Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Milo said:

Honestly, the only thing that I accept is that the experts are likely to have an agenda, one way or another, and their models will reflect that agenda. 

 

The amount of noise is incredible, and if there is a truth, then it is drowned out. 

Same could be said of the non-experts and the politicians shouting down experts

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

I was responding to toddybads post. 

 

My my point is that for every remain expert that trots out the negatives of leaving the EU, there will be a leave expert doing the opposite. 

 

The original point made by toddybad in this exchange is that we should trust the experts. I disagree. 

 

Yeah, I thought as much, but you undermine your argument when you cite George Osbourne as an expert.

[Milo]

Just now, Emilio Lestavez said:

 

3 hours ago, Milo said:

Honestly, the only thing that I accept is that the experts are likely to have an agenda, one way or another, and their models will reflect that agenda. 

 

The amount of noise is incredible, and if there is a truth, then it is drowned out. 

Same could be said of the non-experts and the politicians shouting down experts

 

Yep. 

 

It's an extraordinarily emotive subject - people who want to remain want to remain, and people who want to leave want to leave. 

 

Nothing much seems to change the others mind, a lot of debates descend into name calling and stat-waving. Neither of which is particularly helpful and often polarises people further. 

 

The line that 'it is a fact' that things will be worse if we leave is annoying. Just as annoying as people saying that it's a fact that life will be better if we stay. 

 

Truth is nobody knows. Experts, politicians, joe public, FT members or my dog. 

[Milo]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

8 minutes ago, Milo said:

I was responding to toddybads post. 

 

My my point is that for every remain expert that trots out the negatives of leaving the EU, there will be a leave expert doing the opposite. 

 

The original point made by toddybad in this exchange is that we should trust the experts. I disagree. 

 

Yeah, I thought as much, but you undermine your argument when you cite George Osbourne as an expert.

 good point. 

 

Substitute Osborne for Carney..!

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Milo said:

Yep. 

 

It's an extraordinarily emotive subject - people who want to remain want to remain, and people who want to leave want to leave. 

 

Nothing much seems to change the others mind, a lot of debates descend into name calling and stat-waving. Neither of which is particularly helpful and often polarises people further. 

 

The line that 'it is a fact' that things will be worse if we leave is annoying. Just as annoying as people saying that it's a fact that life will be better if we stay. 

 

Truth is nobody knows. Experts, politicians, joe public, FT members or my dog. 

When it comes to this particular topic I'd agree with you. Ask five different experts and you'll get ten different opinions about how it's all going to play out, and that's often because the experts in question have something to gain from pushing things one way of the other.

 

However, one thing I dislike about this whole brouhaha (and by extension the political landscape as a whole for the last couple of years) is that lots of folks are using that uncertainty to attempt to write off any expert on any topic - including the harder scientific ones for which there is much more evidence and consensus and where the experts involved have nothing to gain from stating what they have discovered - for their own benefit. That is a really unfortunate consequence of all this.

[Rogstanley]

7 minutes ago, Milo said:

Yep. 

 

It's an extraordinarily emotive subject - people who want to remain want to remain, and people who want to leave want to leave. 

 

Nothing much seems to change the others mind, a lot of debates descend into name calling and stat-waving. Neither of which is particularly helpful and often polarises people further. 

 

The line that 'it is a fact' that things will be worse if we leave is annoying. Just as annoying as people saying that it's a fact that life will be better if we stay. 

 

Truth is nobody knows. Experts, politicians, joe public, FT members or my dog. 

It is a fact that things have already worsened as a direct result of the vote (collapsing pound, wages in freefall, lowest growth in G7) and it is a fact that the vast majority of credible experts do think brexit is a bad idea for most people.

 

You can never be sure of anything happening until it has actually happened, but when all the signs are saying something is going to be bad then it's probably worth taking notice.

[Fox Ulike]

18 minutes ago, Milo said:

Yep. 

 

It's an extraordinarily emotive subject - people who want to remain want to remain, and people who want to leave want to leave. 

 

Nothing much seems to change the others mind, a lot of debates descend into name calling and stat-waving. Neither of which is particularly helpful and often polarises people further. 

 

The line that 'it is a fact' that things will be worse if we leave is annoying. Just as annoying as people saying that it's a fact that life will be better if we stay. 

 

Truth is nobody knows. Experts, politicians, joe public, FT members or my dog. 

 

This is true.

 

However, making such a big and potentially disruptive change to our economy on the strength that “nobody knows” isn’t most people’s idea of sound economic planning!

 

I guess it really comes down to your attitude towards risk.  It could go well. But the potential upside is likely to be far in the future, and relatively minor. However, the potential downside could be very bad indeed, and very immediate.

 

Nobody knows. But - most of us have a pretty good life in the UK – so why would we take the risk?

 

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

It is a fact that things have already worsened as a direct result of the vote (collapsing pound, wages in freefall, lowest growth in G7) and it is a fact that the vast majority of credible experts do think brexit is a bad idea for most people.

 

You can never be sure of anything happening until it has actually happened, but when all the signs are saying something is going to be bad then it's probably worth taking notice.

Wages aren’t in free fall, they just arent rising as fast as inflation. It’s pretty much stagnation and as you’ve proven before it’s been happening for 10 straight years. The pound has all but recovered and that drop is to be expected with uncertainty. And experts are only credible when they say what you agree with in politics.

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Wages aren’t in free fall, they just arent rising as fast as inflation. It’s pretty much stagnation and as you’ve proven before it’s been happening for 10 straight years. The pound has all but recovered and that drop is to be expected with uncertainty. And experts are only credible when they say what you agree with in politics.

Not so. I think you're just projecting your own attitude on to everybody else.

 

The only reason I am against Brexit is because of the reports I have seen and read by independent sources with nothing to gain from outlining negative economic consequences of Brexit. Such as RaboBank.

 

If there were a majority of independent experts outlining why Brexit would benefit Britain economically then I would be in favour of Brexit. The problem is, there just isn't.

 

I think that most remainers wouldn't care one way or the other if they felt that leaving the EU would actually achieve anything.

[Rogstanley]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Wages aren’t in free fall, they just arent rising as fast as inflation. It’s pretty much stagnation and as you’ve proven before it’s been happening for 10 straight years. The pound has all but recovered and that drop is to be expected with uncertainty. And experts are only credible when they say what you agree with in politics.

Wages are freely falling in real terms. They are in freefall.

 

The pound is still well below it's average trading range against the dollar since 2009. Uncertainty caused by the prospect of the referendum caused it to fall through late 2015 into 2016, then it collapsed further as a result of the brexit vote. Since then it has regained some ground thanks to the prospect of avoiding a hard crash brexit but is still below pre-referendum and well below where it was from 2009 to 2015.

 

Experts are people who have demonstrated a level of expertise in given subjects. Experts in economics tend to call themselves economists. Among economists, the vast majority believe brexit will have negative financial consequences for most British people. Just facts boy, jus da facts.

Edited 5 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[Milo]

22 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

36 minutes ago, Milo said:

Yep. 

 

It's an extraordinarily emotive subject - people who want to remain want to remain, and people who want to leave want to leave. 

 

Nothing much seems to change the others mind, a lot of debates descend into name calling and stat-waving. Neither of which is particularly helpful and often polarises people further. 

 

The line that 'it is a fact' that things will be worse if we leave is annoying. Just as annoying as people saying that it's a fact that life will be better if we stay. 

 

Truth is nobody knows. Experts, politicians, joe public, FT members or my dog. 

It is a fact that things have already worsened as a direct result of the vote (collapsing pound, wages in freefall, lowest growth in G7) and it is a fact that the vast majority of credible experts do think brexit is a bad idea for most people.

 

You can never be sure of anything happening until it has actually happened, but when all the signs are saying something is going to be bad then it's probably worth taking notice.

I couldn't not fail to disagree less. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Wages are freely falling in real terms. They are in freefall.

 

The pound is still well below it's average trading range against the dollar since 2009. Uncertainty caused by the prospect of the referendum caused it to fall through late 2015 into 2016, then it collapsed further as a result of the brexit vote. Since then it has regained some ground thanks to the prospect of avoiding a hard crash brexit but is still below pre-referendum and well below where it was from 2009 to 2015.

 

Experts are people who have demonstrated a level of expertise in given subjects. Experts in economics tend to call themselves economists. Among economists, the vast majority believe brexit will have negative financial consequences for most British people. Just facts boy, jus da facts.

TBH Rog I'd like to see the UK remain or a soft Brexit for my own science-related reasons but saying the "science is settled" on this one (or on practically all economic matters) does a disservice to those areas where the science really is settled (or more so, anyway) and makes them less likely to be trusted...so I'm really not a fan of it being said.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Milo said:

I was responding to toddybads post. 

 

My my point is that for every remain expert that trots out the negatives of leaving the EU, there will be a leave expert doing the opposite. 

 

The original point made by toddybad in this exchange is that we should trust the experts. I disagree. 

The only leave campaigners claiming to be experts are economists for Brexit who have used discredited means to come to their wild conclusions. All the other experts expect harm. Even the government position agreed by the tory leavers tacitly admits as much. The only people that believe in fairies are non experts.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

This is true.

 

However, making such a big and potentially disruptive change to our economy on the strength that “nobody knows” isn’t most people’s idea of sound economic planning!

 

I guess it really comes down to your attitude towards risk.  It could go well. But the potential upside is likely to be far in the future, and relatively minor. However, the potential downside could be very bad indeed, and very immediate.

 

Nobody knows. But - most of us have a pretty good life in the UK – so why would we take the risk?

 

This is the most bizarre thing. The people doing the best - the baby boomers - are the ones voting out. Though they never have been good at voting for future generation's prosperity.

Edited 5 March 2018 by Guest

[Fox Ulike]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is the most bizarre thing. The people doing the best - the baby boomers - are the ones voting out. Though they never have been good at voting for future generation's prosperity.

 

I actually wish we could get past the economic argument.  It’s clear that the most likely economic consequences are a downturn in growth. Countering this with “nobody knows” is as far as the argument is ever going to go.

 

What I find strange it that nobody on this forum ever talks about immigration being a reason to Leave.

 

Are people clinging to the economic arguments because they don’t feel they can air their views on the number of immigrants the EU has brought into this country?

 

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I actually wish we could get past the economic argument.  It’s clear that the most likely economic consequences are a downturn in growth. Countering this with “nobody knows” is as far as the argument is ever going to go.

 

What I find strange it that nobody on this forum ever talks about immigration being a reason to Leave.

 

Are people clinging to the economic arguments because they don’t feel they can air their views on the number of immigrants the EU has brought into this country?

 

Eh? Immigration is definitely a reason to leave, and has been discussed on here numerous times. Alas, like the economic counter, it only ever ends in "racists". Pretty much why it was dropped imo. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Eh? Immigration is definitely a reason to leave, and has been discussed on here numerous times. Alas, like the economic counter, it only ever ends in "racists". Pretty much why it was dropped imo. 

Any discussion about limiting immigration is going to carry with it the connotations that a person in that discussion considers their own nationality superior or otherwise more deserving of resources: that's a base reason for limiting it in the first place, after all. It has to be a pretty nuanced argument that manages to explain a position on limiting it without coming back to that point or not including it in any way. It would be better if people acknowledged that rather than avoiding the issue entirely, as it does need to be discussed.

 

Also:

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/us-lobbying-uk-drop-food-name-protections-sell-cornish-pasties/

 

Thoughts of folks?

Edited 5 March 2018 by leicsmac

[Rogstanley]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBH Rog I'd like to see the UK remain or a soft Brexit for my own science-related reasons but saying the "science is settled" on this one (or on practically all economic matters) does a disservice to those areas where the science really is settled (or more so, anyway) and makes them less likely to be trusted...so I'm really not a fan of it being said.

Not really sure how else to say it. The vast majority of economists agree that the financial impact of brexit will be negative on most British people. They might all be wrong, but that is their current position.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Any discussion about limiting immigration is going to carry with it the connotations that a person in that discussion considers their own nationality superior or otherwise more deserving of resources: that's a base reason for limiting it in the first place, after all. It has to be a pretty nuanced argument that manages to explain a position on limiting it without coming back to that point or not including it in any way. It would be better if people acknowledged that rather than avoiding the issue entirely, as it does need to be discussed.

 

Also:

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/us-lobbying-uk-drop-food-name-protections-sell-cornish-pasties/

 

Thoughts of folks?

Cornish pasties and pork pies I don't really care about where it comes from, but Scotch! No way!

 

This is exactly the kind of thing that would make a trade deal with the US more complicated, they would use a trade deal as leverage and they will see it (as will other countries) as an opportunity to pressure the UK into getting rid of EU protectionist rules and regulations.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Not really sure how else to say it. The vast majority of economists agree that the financial impact of brexit will be negative on most British people. They might all be wrong, but that is their current position.

Fair enough. Perhaps it's my own bias but I consider economics to be much more nebulous than, say, physics, and so as a result predictions and hypotheses are somewhat less reliable until tested IMO.

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Any discussion about limiting immigration is going to carry with it the connotations that a person in that discussion considers their own nationality superior or otherwise more deserving of resources: that's a base reason for limiting it in the first place, after all. It has to be a pretty nuanced argument that manages to explain a position on limiting it without coming back to that point or not including it in any way. It would be better if people acknowledged that rather than avoiding the issue entirely, as it does need to be discussed.

 

Also:

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/us-lobbying-uk-drop-food-name-protections-sell-cornish-pasties/

 

Thoughts of folks?

I'd argue it's not about being more deserving of resources, it's about it being a lot more expensive to create a life here than it is in Eastern Europe. I don't think it's racist to be a bit annoyed that someone doing my job will be living in a 5 bed mansion on returning home while I'm "slumming" it in a 3 bed semi for the same money. 

 

I have no problems at all if people want to move here permanently and join us, I do have a problem with people coming here temporarily and taking money out of a system they didn't help create. Admittedly, that could just be my view. 

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I'd argue it's not about being more deserving of resources, it's about it being a lot more expensive to create a life here than it is in Eastern Europe. I don't think it's racist to be a bit annoyed that someone doing my job will be living in a 5 bed mansion on returning home while I'm "slumming" it in a 3 bed semi for the same money. 

Why would you be annoyed by that? If you wanted to live in a cheap country, you could. Nothing stopping you buying property in Romania and living there.

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Why would you be annoyed by that? If you wanted to live in a cheap country, you could. Nothing stopping you buying property in Romania and living there.

Would miss my mommy. 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I'd argue it's not about being more deserving of resources, it's about it being a lot more expensive to create a life here than it is in Eastern Europe. I don't think it's racist to be a bit annoyed that someone doing my job will be living in a 5 bed mansion on returning home while I'm "slumming" it in a 3 bed semi for the same money. 

 

I have no problems at all if people want to move here permanently and join us, I do have a problem with people coming here temporarily and taking money out of a system they didn't help create. Admittedly, that could just be my view. 

So there's a discrepancy in equality of opportunity here then, in your view?

 

That actually highlights another problem with borders and the legislation that goes with them, come to think of it: how the value of money differs from one place to another and adds to inequality in some circumstances.

 

But hey...solving inequality is impossible anyway, right?

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Would miss my mommy. 

If you aren't prepared to make the sacrifices you can't expect to get the benefits.

 

Which one of us us supposed to be a Tory again