EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[anme]

I do not have a say in the Brexit negotiations, and neither do you.

That piece from The Economist, is more opinion and speculation than fact. "Britain may still have to pay into the EU", "Trump reportedly wants the Queen watch him play golf". Really?

The Economist used to be a respected publication, but now it's just an EU-loving mouthpiece. I pay little attention to its biased outpourings.

How do you know I don't have a say in the brexit negotiations? I actually have a little influence on both sides.

Please explain which parts of the Economist article you disagree with and why. If you can't be bothered to read it all, just give us the most important points. Disparaging the publication rather than rebutting the article might give the impression that it's actually correct. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice per day.

 

[Aldaniti]

I actually have a little influence on both sides.

Bingo! You're Jeremy Corbyn and I hereby claim my five pounds.

 

[anme]

Bingo! You're Jeremy Corbyn and I hereby claim my five pounds.

I'm sorry?

 

[EM2]

I'm sorry?

It's all to do with Lobby Lud.

 

[Aldaniti]

I'm sorry?

Think about it. You're the educated Remainer with a penchant for Wikipedia.... I'm just a thicko.

 

[Busaholic]

It's all to do with Lobby Lud.

A fiver in those days would buy you a return ticket from Aberdeen to London, an overnight stay in the Ritz with afternoon tea thrown in and enough change to buy a terraced house in Hull, whereas now you might get a coffee with a dessicated slice of carrot cake in your favourite local coffee outlet.

 

[miami]

The "war" was over when the polls closed on June 23rd. Get used to it.

I've suddenly realised why Corbyn isn't actually doing anything in opposition. In 2015 we elected (well 37% of the electorate) a Tory Party headed by David Cameron. Milliband lost, and Corbyn has got over it. Clearly there is no room for dissent as the people have spoken, and we will all blindly follow our unelected führer until 2020.

 

[Mvann]

It's all to do with Lobby Lud.

You would have to be English and over a certain age to understand that joke

 

[RichmondCommu]

The war is not over yet, so we shouldn't give up. Hard Brexit isn't inevitable. If it does happen, we can get back into the single market. And even if the war was really over, then we still don't have to "get on with it". Those of us who are able to, can leave the UK. We can boycott British goods as much as possible and stop supporting British sportspeople and teams. We can holiday in the EU instead of Britain. There's also no way I'm visiting America while Trump is president.

What a miserable and bitter individual you are.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Sadly not yet, but I'm sure you would concur that there's little point continuing the discussion if we're all in agreement that leaving the EU is a terrible idea.

And how likely is all of that?

 

[EM2]

You would have to be English and over a certain age to understand that joke

Hence why I linked to an article that would explain.

 

[anme]

What a miserable and bitter individual you are.

Some posts speak for themselves. This is one of them.

 

[anme]

And how likely is all of that?

We're still waiting for you or anyone else to explain even in the most basic terms why you don't agree with this article: http://www.economist.com/news/brita...ns-country-has-less-not-more-control-over-its

If you're not able to do so, I can only conclude the you agree with it.

 

[AlterEgo]

We're still waiting for you or anyone else to explain even in the most basic terms why you don't agree with this article: http://www.economist.com/news/brita...ns-country-has-less-not-more-control-over-its

If you're not able to do so, I can only conclude the you agree with it.

Spectacularly false logic that if someone can't explain why they don't agree with something that they, by default, must agree with it.

Stop hectoring people; it is not helping, only hindering.

 

[anme]

Spectacularly false logic that if someone can't explain why they don't agree with something that they, by default, must agree with it.

Stop hectoring people; it is not helping, only hindering.

What is it hindering?

The logic in my post was incomplete, but that was out of politeness. I don't want to be one of those people who denigrates the intelligence and education of leave supporters. But you are absolutely right that there are two possible reasons why someone would not be able to explain why they disagree with the article (*):
1. They agree with the article; or
2. They lack the intelligence and/or knowledge to read, understand, analyse and/or write a reasoned response to the article, even in the most basic terms.

I'm sorry that I've had to spell it out in this way. I'm sure that 2 does not apply to anyone on this forum, so I can only conclude that 1 is correct.

(*) http://www.economist.com/news/brita...ns-country-has-less-not-more-control-over-its

 

[AlterEgo]

I rather think that most of the forum don't read the Economist, or publications like it. I read it, but only because I kind of have to for work. Otherwise I wouldn't.

To rebut the article would require a pretty good knowledge of economics, which I'm not sure most of us have. I certainly don't.

The logic is still false however. It's like saying if I don't agree with abortion but can't really articulate why, it doesn't stand to reason that I agree with it by default.

 

[anme]

I rather think that most of the forum don't read the Economist, or publications like it. I read it, but only because I kind of have to for work. Otherwise I wouldn't.

I have posted the link to the article several times. Here it is again: http://www.economist.com/news/brita...ns-country-has-less-not-more-control-over-its

To rebut the article would require a pretty good knowledge of economics, which I'm not sure most of us have. I certainly don't.

That's a very dangerous argument. Do you really think we should leave questions such as "should the UK remain in the EU" to qualified economists? They made their position pretty clear!

It's also not true. The central argument of the article is very simple - that control and autonomy are not the same thing. For example, that a country of 60 million people has less influence than a country of 300 million people when it comes to trade negotiations. You really do not have to have a degree in economics to understand it.

The logic is still false however. It's like saying if I don't agree with abortion but can't really articulate why, it doesn't stand to reason that I agree with it by default.

Indeed - but then you fall under my category 2:
They lack the intelligence and/or knowledge to read, understand, analyse and/or write a reasoned response [...], even in the most basic terms.

You're dangerously close to arguing that leave supporters in this forum are idiots. (To be clear, I don't think that)

 

[Aldaniti]

You would have to be English and over a certain age to understand that joke

Not really; some quotes are carried down in history. I could say that this country has seen better days, but that wouldn't suggest I was born in the 17th Century.

 

[Mvann]

Not really; some quotes are carried down in history. I could say that this country has seen better days, but that wouldn't suggest I was born in the 17th Century.

But I wouldn't say that "your lobby ludd and I claim my £5" is one of them"

 

[RichmondCommu]

We're still waiting for you or anyone else to explain even in the most basic terms why you don't agree with this article: http://www.economist.com/news/brita...ns-country-has-less-not-more-control-over-its

If you're not able to do so, I can only conclude the you agree with it.

I've already stated that I agree with the article however it's obvious that there are plenty of forum members who don't.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Some posts speak for themselves. This is one of them.

Well exactly. He's bitter and miserable.

 

[anme]

Well exactly. He's bitter and miserable.

He or she is taking action to support their beliefs. Don't you think that's a good thing? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all did that?

 

[Mvann]

So I've read the article. What's to rebuff. Can't rebuff the comments about trump or the political change of stance towards him as these comments have been reported. Amount of people for leverage of deal, I would say is mainly true, but in certain aspects, dealing with a country like America or India or China is going to be easier than dealing with a trade block, where, in certain areas of that trade block, what's good for one country could be terrible for another.

 

[anme]

I've already stated that I agree with the article however it's obvious that there are plenty of forum members who don't.

Why is it obvious that plenty of forum members don't agree with the article? So far I've only seen disparagement of the publication. No-one has addressed *why* they disagree with the *article* itself. The only possibility is because they agree with it and have too much integrity to write otherwise. Others have argued that, basically, leavers are not intelligent enough to respond to the article, but I absolutely don't think that's true.

 

[anme]

So I've read the article. What's to rebuff. Can't rebuff the comments about trump or the political change of stance towards him as these comments have been reported. Amount of people for leverage of deal, I would say is mainly true, but in certain aspects, dealing with a country like America or India or China is going to be easier than dealing with a trade block, where, in certain areas of that trade block, what's good for one country could be terrible for another.

But what about the point that the UK may have to, for example, accept hormone injected meat or GM crops, if we want to trade deal with the US? Do you think that's acceptable? Won't we then have to start injecting hormones into our own cows so that our farmers can compete? But then, of course, we can't export them to the EU any more.

In what areas are you prepared to accept accept US regulations in order to get a trade deal? And how do we square that with the fact that the UK will have to shadow EU regulations if it wants to trade with the EU in many areas?

The main point is that far from "taking back control", the UK is now in a position where we have no control whatsoever.

But thanks for actually reading the article and writing some kind of response.

 

[RichmondCommu]

He or she is taking action to support their beliefs. Don't you think that's a good thing? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all did that?

What by refusing to cheer on British sports men and women? How can that be a good thing? Will the world be a better place because of it?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

"
I take whatever the The Economist opines with a massive pinch of salt, it is unashamedly pro-EU and that is reflected in its output. I remember the BBC showing a blatantly biased EU propaganda film a couple of years ago, The Great European Disaster Movie, which was co-produced by an ex-editor of The Economist. Says it all, really.

The problem with that approach is that the Economist isn't something like the Mail or the Express - where we know those publications frequently play loose with facts and are not above misleading headlines and selective reporting etc. For tabloids, because we know they are so often inaccurate, it's often quite reasonable to presume - based on experience - that a given story in them is likely to be biased/inaccurate.

But in my experience, the Economist isn't at all like that: It has a very factual-based, evidence-based approach. Obviously, it's going to have a viewpoint, but I've never seen the Economist offer a view that doesn't appear to have a solid evidence-based justification. Saying that it's blatently biased towards the EU is a bit like saying that scientists are blatently biased towards climate change theories. If you've read the article and can see something specifically wrong with it - something where they've got their facts wrong or have made a mistake in their reasoning, and you're disagreeing with the article on that basis, then that would be fair enough. But I would suggest that if you simply dismiss it on the basis that it's the Economist and therefore biased, then you're putting yourself in much the same position as - say - climate change deniers when they ignore scientific evidence on the basis that the scientists are going to be biased. (Not quite the same because the Economist is still a magazine, not a scientific journal, but not too far off). Doesn't make your arguments look very useful.

"Taking back control" from Brussels is what I understand that slogan to mean. We will be able to negotiate trade deals with whomever we please and on mutually agreeable terms, something which we are forbidden to do at the moment.

Oddly enough, the very same article that you're choosing to ignore gives a pretty good indication of what is wrong with your logic here:

A fact of the modern world, sadly overlooked in the referendum, is bringing itself to bear on Britain: control and autonomy are not the same thing. The country is party to some 700 treaties, member of myriad international organisations and spends tens of billions on a nuclear deterrent unusable without America (this week it transpired that, at Washington’s behest, Parliament had been kept in the dark when a missile went off course in a test). In each of these cases, Britain trades pure self-determination for real influence: the ability to shape its economic, security and environmental circumstances. Its membership of the EU is just one of many such deals.

In other words, the kind of freedom you're describing is to some extent a pipedream - existing treaties as well as the reality of how international relations work mean that you never have complete freedom to sign whatever treaties you want: You are always heavily constrained by existing treaties, membership of other organisations, etc. EU membership doesn't really change that (although you could argue the legal constraints it puts on you are greater than the constraints that other organisations/treaties put on you).

 

[anme]

What by refusing to cheer on British sports men and women? How can that be a good thing? Will the world be a better place because of it?

How will the world be a better place if he/she does cheer on British sports men and women? It seems bizarre to "support" a sportsperson because of where they were born (or, frankly, for any other reason). Anyway, I suspect that "supporting" a sportsperson is an emotional urge rather than a rational decision, so it can't be forced. And nationality is not the most important quality of a human being.

Our friend did also mention, amongst other things, boycotting British products.

 

[RichmondCommu]

How will the world be a better place if he/she does cheer on British sports men and women? It seems bizarre to "support" a sportsperson because of where they were born (or, frankly, for any other reason). Anyway, I suspect that "supporting" a sportsperson is an emotional urge rather than a rational decision, so it can't be forced. And nationality is not the most important quality of a human being.

Well assuming he or she already enjoys cheering on British sportsmen / women what would they gain by not doing it?

 

[Mvann]

But what about the point that the UK may have to, for example, accept hormone injected meat or GM crops, if we want to trade deal with the US? Do you think that's acceptable? Won't we then have to start injecting hormones into our own cows so that our farmers can compete? But then, of course, we can't export them to the EU any more.

In what areas are you prepared to accept accept US regulations in order to get a trade deal? And how do we square that with the fact that the UK will have to shadow EU regulations if it wants to trade with the EU in many areas?

The main point is that far from "taking back control", the UK is now in a position where we have no control whatsoever.

But thanks for actually reading the article and writing some kind of response.

Yes and that is the point. It may. France may vote in le penn and that may have dramatic effects on the Eu. There are to many ifs, buts and maybes from outside uk and eu that could change everything