Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Old Blue 2]

by 2014 we'd got to a stage where our only real ally was Orban and the Hungarians. If he's your main supporter than you can probably assume you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

If one were to apply the above simple logic (althought it is not actually logic) to the end of June 1940, one would come up with:
'We (the UK) got to a stage where our only real European ally was... (insert name of country here, maybe Greece). [...] you can probably assume you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.'

The fact that we are leaving the EU, to the dismay of the EU (Oh no! The UK will stop giving us money!), is not, per se, a wrong turn. It might be seen as such by you, Bruce, but it is not seen as such by all in the UK.

 

[peteblue]

Being a man who has obtained positions of influence during your own career, I'm sure you can appreciate the political nature of these things, and by 2014 we'd got to a stage where our only real ally was Orban and the Hungarians. If he's your main supporter than you can probably assume you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Of course Bruce, but it’s a good example of how something that we publicly didn’t want was just foisted on us anyway.....

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So that report was based on the following (as quoted from the report itself):
1. a sample of around 3,000 adults, selected using a random probability method;
2. nearly 4,000 people in Britain, recruited via the British Social Attitudes survey, using a random probability sampling method; and
3. a panel of around 30,000 individuals. The panel was recruited using quota sampling methods.
The above from page 5 of the document.

So you're hanging your hat on a survey of 0.2% of the total leave vote? 37,000 to 17.4 million. And of those 37,000, were they all leave voters, or were they a cross-section of both sides (I cannot find it in the document where that is explained)?

You know my views on those kind of surveys/reports...

I feel like we're retreading old ground again, but I'd like to make 2 points here. Firstly, that is how surveys work and there is considerable research into sampling methodologies and so on, so there is inevitably a spread in terms of reliability of what comes back, but small subsets can be a reliable indicator of larger populations.

Secondly, they are, to the best of my knowledge, the best we have. I presume you agree that if the government is to fulfil the 'will of the people' then it's a good idea to understand exactly what kind of Brexit leave voters want (since that wasn't on the ballot)? In which case, precisely what has the government done to inform their actions in that regard? To the best of my knowledge, they've done bugger all.

You're dismissing imperfect evidence in favour of using no evidence at all, simply because you don't like the imperfect evidence that's presented. I'm not sure that's wise.

If one were to apply the above simple logic (althought it is not actually logic) to the end of June 1940, one would come up with:
'We (the UK) got to a stage where our only real European ally was... (insert name of country here, maybe Greece). [...] you can probably assume you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.'

The fact that we are leaving the EU, to the dismay of the EU (Oh no! The UK will stop giving us money!), is not, per se, a wrong turn. It might be seen as such by you, Bruce, but it is not seen as such by all in the UK.

We're not at war and Germany (or indeed the EU) is not our enemy. We were left with a political ally who wants a 'final solution' to his countries gypsy 'problem' and for no Muslims to set foot in his country. With friends like that...

Of course Bruce, but it’s a good example of how something that we publicly didn’t want was just foisted on us anyway.....

That is what happens a lot of the time in politics though isn't it, as many remain voters can testify at the moment

 

[Old Blue 2]

Bruce,
I'm not going to use the 'reply' button to quote your whole post.

All I'll say is, if you set so much store by such non-valid statistics samples, then fine, carry on thinking they are OK, and carry on quoting them on here to try to prove a point. They are worthless. And it's not a case of 'imperfect evidence' against 'no evidence', it's a case of relying on false evidence to support a contention.

And if you do not like the 1940 analogy, then so what? Were we out of step in 1940 in the light of the whole of western Europe being under German rule? Were we wrong to stand up to Germany? Equally so, are we wrong to say to the EU, 'Enough is enough, we're outta here!'? No, we are not.

I really cannot get my head around the fact that people STILL think it is a good idea for the UK to be part of the EU. All the more so since 24th June 2016 when the barrage of attacks and threats started from the likes of Juncker, Verhofstedt and the rest, and continue up to present. Do people like you, Bruce, still want to part of that nest of vipers?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I believe if you're to enact the 'will of the people', then you need to understand what exactly that is. Given how much it's used to support the leave argument I'm surprised you don't. Assuming you don't want to survey 17 million people on exactly what they want Brexit to mean, I'd love to know how you presume to learn what people actually want Brexit to mean.

You clearly have an issue with the surveys, but I have yet to see a single analysis of the vote and the way the electorate was divided that says anything different. Are they all wrong?

Regarding the war, you prompted me to reattach myself to reality a few days ago, and I'd like to return the favour if you're seriously comparing standing up to Nazi Germany with Brexit. Things flip so frequently I'm not really sure what's the narrative at the moment, but when Brits suggested that we aren't going to get anywhere near as good a deal outside the EU as we have inside it, it's branded as project fear, then when EU officials say the same it's branded as an attack or threat. Maybe, just maybe, it's the reality you're so in search of?

I'm inclined to think we need an 'adopt a Brexiteer' project or something where you get to actually work with an EC employee. As an ex-civil service man yourself, you might find them to be all rather familiar.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

 

[tsubaki]

And if you do not like the 1940 analogy, then so what? Were we out of step in 1940 in the light of the whole of western Europe being under German rule? Were we wrong to stand up to Germany? Equally so, are we wrong to say to the EU, 'Enough is enough, we're outta here!'? No, we are not.

Yes, we are. If you want to use 1940 as an analogy, then you could at least acknowledge that the world situation in 1940 only came about because the UK had deliberately not taken an effective part in European affairs for most of the past hundred and twenty-five years. Our inaction allowed the Second Reich to grow to the size that it dominated Europe (and could conceive of dominating us), and after the horrors of the first war we then spent at least five years failing to build any kind of effective anti-Hitler coalition, which would probably have stopped him at considerably less cost than what it eventually took.

After that, if you still want to use 1940 as an analogy then you could also acknowledge that the obvious result of us leaving is that the bloc is even more German dominated than it was previously.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Another useless study, this time from over 400,000 Brits.

Unlike previous elections, fear and worry played a heavy hand in both the 2016 Donald Trump and "Brexit" elections, changing the script on how personality shapes political behavior, according to an international psychological study on voting behavior.

Research has long established that political attitudes are associated with the Big Five personality traits. For example, prior studies show low openness and high conscientiousness to be related to conservativism. But in 2016, two campaigns built on populist themes of fear, lost pride and loss aversion awoke previously uninfluential traits, particularly those of anxiety, anger and fear -- all of which are aspects of the Big Five trait of neuroticism.

The study, conducted by researchers from Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Ilmenau University of Technology, University of Cambridge, the London School of Economics and Political Science, Melbourne University and The University of Texas at Austin, was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science in March.

"The models traditionally used for predicting and explaining political behavior did not capture an essential factor that influenced people's voting decisions in 2016," said lead author Martin Obschonka, a psychologist and associate professor in entrepreneurship at QUT. "We propose a kind of "sleeper effect." Under normal conditions these traits have no influence, but in certain circumstances, widespread anxiety and fear in a region have the potential to profoundly impact the geopolitical landscape."

Using personality data from 417,217 British and 3,167,041 United States participants, researchers tested regional levels of fear, anxiety and anger, comparing them to the traits historically correlated with political orientation (openness and conscientiousness) to measure the link between regional psychological climate and 2016 voting behavior. Regions were measured at the county-level in the U.S. and local authority district level in the U.K.

The researchers found correlations between higher levels of anxiety and fear in a region and both the Brexit and Trump votes, and an even stronger influence of such traits when considering Trump gains since the 2012 election, when Mitt Romney was the Republican candidate. The 50 U.S. counties with the highest levels of fear and anxiety showed a 9 percent increase, on average, in Republican votes from 2012 to 2016; whereas the 50 counties lowest on fear and anxiety showed a shift of only 2 percent. Similarly, the 50 U.K. districts with the highest levels of fear and anxiety demonstrated an average of 60 percent support for the Brexit, with the lowest 50 districts supporting Brexit at the 46 percent level.

"This finding supports our initial suspicion that the regions highest on neuroticism are particularly receptive to political campaigns that emphasize danger and loss and that previous campaigns have not tapped into these themes as strongly as we saw in 2016," said co-author and UT Austin psychology professor Sam Gosling.

Researchers also considered the role of region's industrial heritage, political attitude, racial composition, educational attainment and economic conditions. In England, rural areas and industrialized locations had both higher levels of anxiety or fear and Brexit votes. And in the U.S., these personality traits also predicted Trump support in battlefields such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, as well as the Midwestern "Rust Belt."

Higher population density, economic earnings, educational attainment and openness traits were negatively related to Brexit and Trump votes, while conscientiousness showed little to no effect in either case.

"Much as the consequences of a region's fearful or anxious tendencies may remain hidden until certain conditions are met, there may be other regional characteristics that have the potential to influence geopolitical events but the necessary conditions have not yet materialized," Gosling said.

Reference: Fear, populism, and the geopolitical landscape: the “sleeper effect” of neurotic personality traits on regional voting behavior in the 2016 Brexit and Trump elections

 

[Old Blue 2]

Yes, we are. If you want to use 1940 as an analogy, then you could at least acknowledge that the world situation in 1940 only came about because the UK had deliberately not taken an effective part in European affairs for most of the past hundred and twenty-five years. Our inaction allowed the Second Reich to grow to the size that it dominated Europe (and could conceive of dominating us), and after the horrors of the first war we then spent at least five years failing to build any kind of effective anti-Hitler coalition, which would probably have stopped him at considerably less cost than what it eventually took.

After that, if you still want to use 1940 as an analogy then you could also acknowledge that the obvious result of us leaving is that the bloc is even more German dominated than it was previously.

Re-writing history, tsubaki?

Following the battle of Waterloo, it is generally acknowledged that having got rid of Napoleon finally, Europe entered a period of almost 100 years of peace, aside from the spat between France and Germany. Britain had no role to play in Bismarck forming the German state, nor the French declaring war on Prussia in 1870.

The build-up to World War 1 is well-known, and it is now apparent that the central European powers were those playing the crucial roles in igniting the start of the war, whereas Britain was drawn in via its treaties. Again, we were not a player in the initial stages of the development of that war prior to our ultimate involvement in August 1914.

After World War 1, financial circumstances were such in the 1920s & 1930s that the ground was laid for the rise to power of Hitler. I don't see how the UK could have interfered in German politics to the extent that they could have prevented his rise to power. To suggest that we could is simply ludicrous. The coalition was there (Britain & France), but did nothing when the Rhineland was reoccupied (it was, after all, German territory).

The attempt by Chamberlain to prevent war in September 1938, while ultimately seen as a failure, provided, as history would show, a valuable 12 months breathing space for us to catch up to some great extent with the German military side. In this I am talking about the RAF, and in particular Fighter Command, finally getting up to speed and equal with the Luftwaffe.

So the 1940 analogy is quite relevant to the point I was making in an earlier post.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

So that report was based on the following (as quoted from the report itself):
1. a sample of around 3,000 adults, selected using a random probability method;
2. nearly 4,000 people in Britain, recruited via the British Social Attitudes survey, using a random probability sampling method; and
3. a panel of around 30,000 individuals. The panel was recruited using quota sampling methods.
The above from page 5 of the document.

So you're hanging your hat on a survey of 0.2% of the total leave vote? 37,000 to 17.4 million. And of those 37,000, were they all leave voters, or were they a cross-section of both sides (I cannot find it in the document where that is explained)?

You know my views on those kind of surveys/reports...

Please - that sample is more than capable of providing accurate analysis. Have you ever been involved with consumer research? As part of my job I have to read opinion papers as part of asset allocation decisions. Our typical sample size would be 1,000 with 2,000 a rare exception.

I feel like we're retreading old ground again, but I'd like to make 2 points here. Firstly, that is how surveys work and there is considerable research into sampling methodologies and so on, so there is inevitably a spread in terms of reliability of what comes back, but small subsets can be a reliable indicator of larger populations.

This!

And if you do not like the 1940 analogy, then so what? Were we out of step in 1940 in the light of the whole of western Europe being under German rule? Were we wrong to stand up to Germany? Equally so, are we wrong to say to the EU, 'Enough is enough, we're outta here!'? No, we are not.

It feels like a amateur dramatic production from somewhere like Melton Mowbray here at the moment.

We are discussing the most important issue in current affairs to affect this country for the next 20 years and the supporters of Brexit are a handful of OAPs @peteblue @Joey66 @Gwladysstreetlad that:

- dismiss any form of research as 'Google magic'
- dismiss any survey data as 'unrepresentative'
- dismiss any forecasts as 'always being wrong'
- dismiss any requests for evidence or precedents to support a position as being 'pedantic'
- dismiss any concerns about risks as 'negative thinking'
- dismiss any further consideration or debate on the detail of Brexit as 'against the will of the people'

And then the cherry on the cake is you now including the events of the second world war in this discussion!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Please - that sample is more than capable of providing accurate analysis. Have you ever been involved with consumer research? As part of my job I have to read opinion papers as part of asset allocation decisions. Our typical sample size would be 1,000 with 2,000 a rare exception.




This!





It feels like a amateur dramatic production from somewhere like Melton Mowbray here at the moment.

We are discussing the most important issue in current affairs to affect this country for the next 20 years and the supporters of Brexit are a handful of OAPs @peteblue @Joey66 @Gwladysstreetlad that:

- dismiss any form of research as 'Google magic'
- dismiss any survey data as 'unrepresentative'
- dismiss any forecasts as 'always being wrong'
- dismiss any requests for evidence or precedents to support a position as being 'pedantic'
- dismiss any concerns about risks as 'negative thinking'
- dismiss any further consideration or debate on the detail of Brexit as 'against the will of the people'

And then the cherry on the cake is you now including the events of the second world war in this discussion!

I feel historians will refer to this as the moment world war three started

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Confirmation here of my view that the Irish border issue will either make of break any sense of a deal on Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43333274

Is it as simple as this reads? It seems to me that unless the UK agrees to a custom union involving the 6 counties in the north of Ireland then there's no way any deal can be agreed?

But wait - hasn't Theresa May already agreed to the above in December? In which case why is there any debate now at all? And why aren't people just calling the UK government outright charlatans if they are now reneging on a deal agreed only 2 or 3 months ago?

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

lWe are discussing the most important issue in current affairs to affect this country for the next 20 years and the supporters of Brexit are a handful of OAPs @peteblue @Joey66 @Gwladysstreetlad

Don't know whether to laugh or cry at being described as an OAP as I'm not even close to that.lol

The supporters of Brexit are rather larger in number then that though mate. There's about 17.4million of us.

that:
- dismiss any forecasts as 'always being wrong'
- dismiss any further consideration or debate on the detail of Brexit as 'against the will of the people'

I believe these two were aimed at me? If any of the other points were also supposed to be about me, feel free to say which and I'll endever to explain my point.

I haven't dismissed all forecasts as 'always being wrong'. I dismissed great swaths of them from sources that were politically motivated to be less then truthful and more often then not wrong. If sombody wants to provide a reliable and unbiased source I will happily discuss their findings.

I have never dismissed further debate on Brexit as being against the will of the people. That debate took up several pages and it was the other poster who claimed that a second Referndum was the 'will of the people'. All I asked (I have yet to receive an answer) is by what authority said poster spoke for the will of the people? I asked said poster to prove that a second Referndum is the will of the people and I'll ask you the same question now. If you prove to me that a second referndum really is the will of the people then not only will I will except it but i will argue alongside you for it. The problem is that you can't do so because you have no proof.

 

[tsubaki]

Re-writing history, tsubaki?

Following the battle of Waterloo, it is generally acknowledged that having got rid of Napoleon finally, Europe entered a period of almost 100 years of peace, aside from the spat between France and Germany. Britain had no role to play in Bismarck forming the German state, nor the French declaring war on Prussia in 1870.

The build-up to World War 1 is well-known, and it is now apparent that the central European powers were those playing the crucial roles in igniting the start of the war, whereas Britain was drawn in via its treaties. Again, we were not a player in the initial stages of the development of that war prior to our ultimate involvement in August 1914.

That was my point, that we "had deliberately not taken an effective part in European affairs for most of the past hundred and twenty-five years".

After World War 1, financial circumstances were such in the 1920s & 1930s that the ground was laid for the rise to power of Hitler. I don't see how the UK could have interfered in German politics to the extent that they could have prevented his rise to power. To suggest that we could is simply ludicrous. The coalition was there (Britain & France), but did nothing when the Rhineland was reoccupied (it was, after all, German territory).

I didn't say interfere in German politics, I said "failing to build any kind of anti-Hitler coalition". Germany was surrounded by hostile regimes and we let almost all of them down.

The attempt by Chamberlain to prevent war in September 1938, while ultimately seen as a failure, provided, as history would show, a valuable 12 months breathing space for us to catch up to some great extent with the German military side. In this I am talking about the RAF, and in particular Fighter Command, finally getting up to speed and equal with the Luftwaffe.

This is a bit of a myth, sadly. In 1933 when Hitler came to power Germany had a tiny army, a tiny navy and the beginnings of an air force wheras Britain still had an empire. We negotiated a treaty which allowed them to build their navy to the point that it was threatening to us, and let them get away with tearing up those bits of Versailles that prevented them tanks and aircraft. It wasn't so much us catching them up as us being miles ahead, stopping, giving them a hand up, a masasage and a seat on the pace car and then trying to catch them.

 

[Old Blue 2]

1. Please - that sample is more than capable of providing accurate analysis. Have you ever been involved with consumer research? As part of my job I have to read opinion papers as part of asset allocation decisions. Our typical sample size would be 1,000 with 2,000 a rare exception.

2. It feels like a amateur dramatic production from somewhere like Melton Mowbray here at the moment.

3. We are discussing the most important issue in current affairs to affect this country for the next 20 years and the supporters of Brexit are a handful of OAPs @peteblue @Joey66 @Gwladysstreetlad that:

- dismiss any form of research as 'Google magic'
- dismiss any survey data as 'unrepresentative'
- dismiss any forecasts as 'always being wrong'
- dismiss any requests for evidence or precedents to support a position as being 'pedantic'
- dismiss any concerns about risks as 'negative thinking'
- dismiss any further consideration or debate on the detail of Brexit as 'against the will of the people'

4. And then the cherry on the cake is you now including the events of the second world war in this discussion!

1. As I was in civil service Management in a Department that served the public, yes I was heavily involved in consumer research. There were regular surveys of the claimant population that my particular District served. I will not mention the findings as I do not wish to do a dis-service to any part of the claimant community.

2. Never been to Melton Mowbray mate, so can't comment.

3. I do not dismiss research. I do question a tiny sample of the population being held up as indicative of the whole of a certain part of the population. That is not proper research at all.
Forecasts have been notoriously wrong continually. Why should anyone set any great store by them? Carney make a total arse of himself with his pronouncements in the immediate aftermath of the Referendum, as did the so-called financial experts who prophesied doom and gloom for the economy. Our Chancellor make a total tit of himself also.
Please do provide concrete evidence of whatever you wish. But I will not accept your own personal viewpoint or opinion as fact (there is a difference).
Negativity is the 'meat and drink' of the media, of whatever persuasion that might be. Just look at what the BBC News puts out, for example.
It's fine to have sensible debate about Brexit, or any issue. But when unsubstantiated premises are advance on any subject, from any side, then they rightly deserve to be challenged.

4. And finally, you question my raising a particular point about the end of the Western Campaign in the Spring of 1940. Fine, but if you raise it, and do not agree with it, then state your reasons for so doing, rather than simply being dismissive of it. To do so smacks of not understanding my point in the first place...