Current Affairs EU In or Out

[peteblue]

But that view is grounded in logic. Nearly every forecast is predicting economic pain for years to come and that's the only thing we can sensibly go on. You might shrug off those forecasts, but you don't have anything to counter them with, because there simply doesn't exist a study or report that paints a good picture economically for Brexit.

Nothing he said was wrong. I think I said this the other day - if you honestly think Brexit will result in sunshine and buttercups for the UK economy over the next decade, you are quite frankly not coming to that conclusion either honestly, or with any evidence whatsoever.

I thought you admitted this the other day? You didn't vote to leave due to the economy. Nobody did. They literally couldn't have done, because there's no evidence to show we'd be better off beyond pie in the sky politician quotes with no substance.

What logic does he demonstrate ? He is a snake oil salesman and you are falling for it again. If he believed in logic why invade Iraq for the deeds of Bin Laden ? Where was this logic then......

 

[Tubey]

There was nothing he said that would suggest he thought the pro-Brexit points actually existed, never mind that he would weigh up the pros and cons.

Because he doesn't see a pro in it personally obviously. But he's suggesting those who did see pros and no cons would suddenly be very aware of the cons.

He's not even saying anything controversial here. If Joe Bloggs said it, nobody would be arsed. People only take issue with it because of who he is, so automatically they retaliate by playing the man instead of the ball.

 

[Tubey]

What logic does he demonstrate ? He is a snake oil salesman and you are falling for it again. If he believed in logic why invade Iraq for the deeds of Bin Laden ? Where was this logic then......

Again, nothing to do with what he's saying on this subject. He can be wrong on many things, but that doesn't make him wrong on every thing.

I look at what people say on any given subject, not who they are or what they've said beforehand. Because by doing that you're showing a level of bias which renders your opinion completely invalid.

 

[peteblue]

Right now, Leave would win - it'd be seen as the elites trying to overturn the electoral will. They'd probably win by a bigger amount.

Two years from now, Remain would probably win around 60/40, because the evidence against it - in my view for those of you who take issue with how I say these things - will be overwhelming.

Based on what. You're just plucking numbers out of the air against negotiations that haven't started against an economic background that no one can predict.......more logic I suppose......

 

[magicjuan]

Right now, Leave would win - it'd be seen as the elites trying to overturn the electoral will. They'd probably win by a bigger amount.

Two years from now, Remain would probably win around 60/40, because the evidence against it - in my view for those of you who take issue with how I say these things - will be overwhelming.

I am not so sure. I think the deliberate fudging and obfuscation over the implementation of A50 is starting to get to people. The british public has a very low boredom threshold and are easily distracted enough to lose interest.
Expect a roal wedding or baby soon...

 

[Tubey]

Based on what. You're just plucking numbers out of the air against negotiations that haven't started against an economic background that no one can predict.......more logic I suppose......

Based on projections for the economic hit the country will take, and the more moderate part of the electorate looking at the practicalities of the situation rather than ideology as a reason for leaving.

So yes, logic. If the projections bear out, we'll be economically hurting, therefore the vote would likely swing the other way when people take account of how their pockets are hurt by this.

 

[peteblue]

Again, nothing to do with what he's saying on this subject. He can be wrong on many things, but that doesn't make him wrong on every thing.

I look at what people say on any given subject, not who they are or what they've said beforehand. Because by doing that you're showing a level of bias which renders your opinion completely invalid.

Hahahaha......I put two quotes in earlier in response to Esk saying something similar. I've not seen a reply, perhaps because they were made by Maggie Thatcher........

 

[Tubey]

I am not so sure. I think the deliberate fudging and obfuscation over the implementation of A50 is starting to get to people. The british public has a very low boredom threshold and are easily distracted enough to lose interest.
Expect a roal wedding or baby soon...

You're right on the first part, but if they theoretically called a second referendum now before activating Article 50, even I'd vote leave - because there's no sensible reason not to activate it. The referendum called for it, and that's the minimum that should be done.

A referendum on the terms of leaving, two years down the line, would be a very different story.

 

[Tubey]

Hahahaha......I put two quotes in earlier in response to Esk saying something similar. I've not seen a reply, perhaps because they were made by Maggie Thatcher........

I agree with Thatcher on some things. Not many, but some, and a few of them you wouldn't expect someone like me to agree with. You'd have to be extreme on the political spectrum to completely disagree with someone on everything.

It's not a sign of weakness to say you agree with part of what those who are naturally an "enemy" say; in fact, it's a sign of strength. It's showing an analytical mind that can look at the merits of a viewpoint, no matter who is expressing the view.

 

[JonS]

No, I didnt. I didnt give more than a nano second of thought to stuff like that. Like, as I said, pretty much most of the electorate, I reckon anyrate.

Fear of change? Yeah, maybe. But it was honestly on the basis that, in my opinion, life in general, society in general, whilst not perfect, aint that bad. And some of the Leavers I encountered on my round in the weeks before the vote, were frankly quite appalling in their views.

Not, that I would ever put you or other Leavers on here, in that group.

Interesting Roydo. Maybe peoples votes in the referendum were influenced by whether they tended to favour or fear change. I tend to prefer change and even a bit of chaos and I voted "leave". You prefer the status quo and therefore voted "remain"...

 

[peteblue]

Based on projections for the economic hit the country will take, and the more moderate part of the electorate looking at the practicalities of the situation rather than ideology as a reason for leaving.

So yes, logic. If the projections bear out, we'll be economically hurting, therefore the vote would likely swing the other way when people take account of how their pockets are hurt by this.

But nobody knows the results of negotiations and nobody has the faintest clue what state the world economy will be in. Russia may well have moved into the Baltic States and Ukraine by then and bombed Berlin, no one knows.....

 

[JonS]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/73...isbon-treat-brexit-Ingrid-Detter-de-Frankopan

Thoughts anyone?

Let's do it - leave right now!

 

[tsubaki]

Because he doesn't see a pro in it personally obviously. But he's suggesting those who did see pros and no cons would suddenly be very aware of the cons.

He's not even saying anything controversial here. If Joe Bloggs said it, nobody would be arsed. People only take issue with it because of who he is, so automatically they retaliate by playing the man instead of the ball.

Which is another typical Blairism - almost everyone who took part in that referendum understood that there are pros and cons and did weigh them up. He even admitted this (in a roundabout way) when he said elsewhere in the interview that he didn't have the Lisbon referendum that he promised because he knew he might lose it. To suggest as he does that people just blindly believed what they were fed by a right wing corporate media is daft, though as he spent much of his premiership trying to get people to blindly believe things by allying with a right wing corporate media you can at least understand why he might suggest such a thing.

As for what he is saying, its impossible to separate his opinions from his history of mendacity. Joe Bloggs didn't cause the death of two hundred British service personnel and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

 

[Tubey]

But nobody knows the results of negotiations and nobody has the faintest clue what state the world economy will be in. Russia may well have moved into the Baltic States and Ukraine by then and bombed Berlin, no one knows.....

The projections cover a wide variety of options and generally assume Brexit means leaving the single market - which is the correct assumption as there's no other way to do it unless you effectively stay in the EU. Again, something Blair correctly pointed out.

You're right in that things can be unpredictable, but at least there's been an attempt to study the effects and many independent bodies have the same line of trajectory on this. They may be all wrong, but when you have that level of consensus, it would be foolish to just laugh it off. You have to make decisions based on something, not just "oh I'm sure it'll be fine."

 

[peteblue]

I agree with Thatcher on some things. Not many, but some, and a few of them you wouldn't expect someone like me to agree with. You'd have to be extreme on the political spectrum to completely disagree with someone on everything.

It's not a sign of weakness to say you agree with part of what those who are naturally an "enemy" say; in fact, it's a sign of strength. It's showing an analytical mind that can look at the merits of a viewpoint, no matter who is expressing the view.

Indeed, so why not quote what Corbyn or Benn or any other politician says about Brexit, for heavens sake they all have something to say, why not quote Cameron or Osborne......why would anyone chose Blair ?.......