EU Referendum

[websaway]

Apart from Nigel Farage of course.

Out of interest are you an expert on anything?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[websaway]

Gimpy, you say weather forecasts are often wrong. That's a nice imprecise word that - "often". Let's cut to the chase. Are meteorological forecasts, let's say for 48 hours from now, more often right, or more often wrong?

(I would recommend you read this Met Office link on accuracy rates, but presumably you'd accuse them of being self-interested and me of trawling Google so here's one on weather verification where you can compare the forecasts they made to the actual weather and temperature.)

Here's the crux, though: how does their success rate compare with the success rate of the person on the street with no access to weather expertise? Is it better? Or no better? What do you think?

The world runs on the work of experts. Expertise matters, in all sorts of areas of life.

That it isn't perfect, that experts are fallible human beings - is besides the point.

It is so embarrassingly obvious that the Leave camp are only denying the value of expertise here because the expert consensus isn't what they want it to be. Well that's just too bad, that's life. The experts may well turn out to be wrong, but that's no reason to dismiss expertise full stop or even experts (in general) full stop. I will happily accept it if/when they turn out to be wrong - but then I value intellectual honesty over head-in-sand commitment to a cause any day of the week.

I don't think the leave camp discounts expert advice. But for instance a lot of their predictions were wrong on joining the Euro, so say for instance Greece could not sort out their deal and Spain or Italy had a run on their banks,then all sorts of things can happen and do at regular intervals. Therefore you have to factor in likelihood.

 

[Edwin]

There's a really dirty debating trick being deployed by the Leave camp.

It's a simple, three step argument that goes like this...

1) "You say 'A'." (a sensible thing backed up by available data and the majority of experts)
2) "I say 'B'." (a ridiculous thing backed by a handful of fringe "experts" and by made up "facts" plucked out of thin air)
3) "So let's agree to split the difference and go with 'C'" (a position that the facts and data still don't back up, but which is significantly less extreme than 'B')

I've seen variations of the above used in a number of debates, as well as in other media.

It's a really insiduous, corrosive ploy because it looks "superficially fair". Anyone not following the subject attentively thinks "boy, that sounds reasonable and friendly - what's on earth is the other chap still arguing about? He doesn't seem to be willing to compromise. I think I'll believe the friendly one."

 

[websaway]

There's a really dirty debating trick being deployed by the Leave camp.

It's a simple, three step argument that goes like this...

1) "You say 'A'." (a sensible thing backed up by available data and the majority of experts)
2) "I say 'B'." (a ridiculous thing backed by a handful of fringe "experts" and by made up "facts" plucked out of thin air)
3) "So let's agree to split the difference and go with 'C'" (a position that the facts and data still don't back up, but which is significantly less extreme than 'B')

I've seen variations of the above used in a number of debates, as well as in other media.

It's a really insiduous, corrosive ploy because it looks "superficially fair". Anyone not following the subject attentively thinks "boy, that sounds reasonable and friendly - what's on earth is the other chap still arguing about? He doesn't seem to be willing to compromise. I think I'll believe the friendly one."

The tactics applied by the remain camp on the other hand are to completely ignore the things that actually concern the people of England in particular now. Ignore immigration and ignore sovereignty issues. Reading Bill Cash today you could almost be forgiven for thinking we lost the second world war and are therefore an annexed state of Germany. The remain argument is something like a virtual computer generated situation, the leave is like real life.

 

[websaway]

Perhaps the most infuriating thing of the Labour remain strategy is everything good is because of the EU , everything bad is because of the government. Simple but initially effective.

 

[Toonz]

I don't think the leave camp discounts expert advice.

My impression is that there's been a very calculated and orchestrated shift to do just that. It seems to have been one of their core tactics that emerged last week during the interviews and debates (along with the almost comedic parroting of the phrase "Take back control" every 4 minutes!)

Michael Gove:
"people in this country have had enough of experts"

Gisela Stuart:
"When it comes to experts, there is only one expert that matter, and that is you, the voter"

It's almost John Cleese-like. Whatever you do, don't mention the experts!

 

[Toonz]

Perhaps the most infuriating thing of the Labour remain strategy is everything good is because of the EU , everything bad is because of the government. Simple but initially effective.

To Corbyn's credit, he's been highly critical of the EU, even in speeches when he's supposed to be making the case for Remain.

 

[Edwin]

From a government's point of view, everything starts from the economy. It has to. This may seem distasteful or uncaring, but it reflects the real world because the economy pays for the NHS. It pays for housing. It pays for benefits. It pays for absolutely everything the government spends money on.

That's why the economic argument isn't just "another thing". It's THE thing, when it comes to what the government will or will not be able to do for workers, the unemployed, farmers, hospitals, pensioners, business owners, etc. If Brexit tanks the economy, you can wave goodbye to any more money for the NHS, for compensating farmers for the loss of their EU subsidies, for support for businesses facing increased tariffs, for anything at all. That so-called "£10 billion surplus" would be gone in the blink of an eye if GDP drops even a hair.

So it's fine to argue (as Nigel Farage has) "Quality of life is more important than GDP." (though it's probably not a good idea to laugh about it like he seems to) But it's absolutely not ok to ignore the negative consequences of that statement as well as the positive, or duck the thorny issue of the economic impact entirely!

If you are saying "I categorically don't care if Brexit hurts the economy, having thought through exactly what that would entail carefully, because X, Y or Z", then fine. That reasoning, made with eyes wide open and full knowledge, is completely legitimate. It's a "position". It shows what you value, what you place the most importance on. And what you therefore base your decision on. Just realise that X, Y or Z other issue won't save the economy.

But if you are saying "Brexit absolutely won't hurt the economy because of bogus 'reason' I just plucked out of thin air." Well, then, that's not fine at all. That's irresponsible in the extreme. That's gambling with everyone's future to chase unicorns.

It is also worth remembering at all times that a government has a much, much higher obligation than any individual citizen. It simply can't stop paying for hospitals, schools, road repairs, benefits, pensions, etc. etc. etc. And so it has to seek to protect the economic position of the country.

Individuals, on the other hand, have comparative luxury: you can take a pay cut or change your lifestyle ("live within your means") if you value other things more than mere money. But a country is like a nest of baby birds, always chirping, always hungry. Those beaks are opening and shutting, gulping down every penny you can find, and it's never, ever enough.

So it's important to understand WHY the government bangs the economy drum until its hands bleed. It's because if the economy fails, everything the government has to and wants to do risks failing too.

Take a moment to check just how little GDP had to drop by to throw us into the last few recessions. It's a tiny amount, a couple of % or so, yet it's the difference between boom times and millions on the dole. Why? Because of those chirping birds: everything the government can get its hands on is already spent, is needed somewhere. There is practically no slack in the system at all (this isn't exclusive to the UK). So what may at face value seem a "tiny" change in percentage terms has diabolic knock-on consequences.

Again, that's a huge difference between a country and a person. Most people are fortunate enough (not all, granted) to be able to ride out a drop of a couple of % in their income. Many wouldn't even notice it, in practical terms. But for a country, that's the bugle call signalling the start of the next recession.

 

[martin-s]

That's why the economic argument isn't just "another thing". It's THE thing

It's THE thing to you, but to some of us THE thing is something else: sovereignty.

And the reason the Gov't bangs that drum, is it's pretty much the only angle Remain has going for it.

 

[Edwin]

It's almost John Cleese-like. Whatever you do, don't mention the experts!

Speaking of John Cleese-like, this ironic article skewered the prevailing "expert allergy" in the Leave camp perfectly... My favourite was the "reasoning" applied to Airline Pilots.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...guide-to-britains-greatest-enemy-the-experts/

 

[Edwin]

It's THE thing to you, but to some of us THE thing is something else: sovereignty.

And the reason the Gov't bangs that drum, is it's pretty much the only angle Remain has going for it.

It's THE thing to the government. And I explained very clearly why it has to be. It looks like you didn't actually read my post.

 

[AlistairM]

What have these experts actually said on the economy? I haven't really looked into it because I know I'm voting out whatever, but when Cameron spouts on about how catastrophic it will be to the economy etc and all these experts agree, have these experts all actually said along the same lines? I ask because I agree that the economy is likely to take a bit of a hit when we leave the EU at first, but if I was an expert that doesn't mean I'd want my name added on the list, as though I agree with what Cameron says about it because I don't. But I wonder if that's what they're doing.

 

[Edwin]

What have these experts actually said on the economy? I haven't really looked into it because I know I'm voting out whatever, but when Cameron spouts on about how catastrophic it will be to the economy etc and all these experts agree, have these experts all actually said along the same lines? I ask because I agree that the economy is likely to take a bit of a hit when we leave the EU at first, but if I was an expert that doesn't mean I'd want my name added on the list, as though I agree with what Cameron says about it because I don't. But I wonder if that's what they're doing.

Here's the original source (Ipsos Mori are the organisation that carried out the research)
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3739/Economists-Views-on-Brexit.aspx

The "9 out of 10 economists" you often hear/see quoted is a very gentle rounding up from 88%, which is the percentage that thought Brexit would harm the UK's economy in the next 5 years. There's a ton more detail at the above link.

It was apparently the largest survey of its type ever carried out in the UK, with 639 respondents.

 

[bonusmedia]

Speaking of John Cleese-like, this ironic article skewered the prevailing "expert allergy" in the Leave camp perfectly... My favourite was the "reasoning" applied to Airline Pilots.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...guide-to-britains-greatest-enemy-the-experts/

This would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so desperately sad. Anti-intellectualism is an extremely worrying trend for anyone who values, um... civilization

 

[Toonz]

Speaking of John Cleese-like, this ironic article skewered the prevailing "expert allergy" in the Leave camp perfectly... My favourite was the "reasoning" applied to Airline Pilots.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...guide-to-britains-greatest-enemy-the-experts/

Haha, that's brilliant!

 

[Brassneck]

This would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so desperately sad. Anti-intellectualism is an extremely worrying trend for anyone who values, um... civilization

Absolutely. And just to show how less civilised that we are compared to most in Europe you only have to look at our football fans' behaviour in Marseilles today - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36506917. Maybe we can balance up the perceived immigation problem by exporting some of these idiots.

 

[Edwin]

This would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so desperately sad. Anti-intellectualism is an extremely worrying trend for anyone who values, um... civilization

It's a global disease - just look at Trump in the US.

 

[Edwin]

A huge majority of UK scientists back Remain. Here's why...
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2016/06/debunking-brexit-myths

 

[dougs]

He who pays the piper still calls the tune. Ever hired an expert lawyer. He can work for either side and still win.

I have hired many expert lawyers...they may work for either side, but when they have a choice they generally pick the side that makes sense

 

[dougs]

With respect, there's no more reason to listen to Dougs than anyone else on here. I couldn't give a crap whether he employs 100 people or not! If anything, employment is one of the obvious areas which would introduce bias to his personal motivation and decision.

Being successful is great, but sometimes the more honest and intelligent thinking comes from people with less to lose.

I don't give a crap either but as this article has gone on for 85 pages and I am an active part of the community maybe I should say something....as almost everyone else has had their say

I have no personal bias believe it or not......in or out people who create things always make money. In times of confusion is the times of more opportunities

The people who have all the facts are the ones where the intelligent thinking comes...sadly this EU decision will not be made by that, but will be made based on FEAR and who can stoke it up and resonate with the masses the best...both sides are doing this. Which ever way that is not the right way to win and create a great future.