E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

You can't really be selective with rationality. Either you are being rational or you are not. Either you are acting optimally for your interests or you are not. This idea of being rational with principles and not with economics, in reality just means that you are not being rational.

Its about priorities more than rationality. The EU is unlikely to go full diva during negotiations for example. It's more likely to prioritise its interests and negotiate rationally with the UK accordingly. Economics and the principles upon which the EU is based will be dialled in at different priority levels along with whatever else keeps things running. EU will dial them in with immediate and future interests kept in mind.

 

You can be selective in what you are rational about, as well as in what your interests are.

Doctors would consider patients refusing certain potentially life-saving cancer treatments as irrational, whereas the patient might think that they are making a perfectly rational quality-of-life decision --it's just that they have different interests at heart.

I think that it is telling that Brexiteers assume that the EU will value economic considerations over its principles when clearly the Brexiteers value their principles over economic considerations. It implies that they think of themselves as principled, and the EU as corrupt. Adversarial them vs us thinking.

 

Of course you can. But if you choose something irrational, then you can't consider yourself rational can you?

 

What is an irrational interest to pursue is quite subjective.

 

True, but that doesn't negate what I've said in the last post.

 

Kind of does.

Take a haematological cancer patient age 35 who refuses bone marrow transplant. Without it he will die in 5 years. The treatment has a 20% chance of killing him outright, 20% chance of not doing anything (it doesn't graft; try again), another 20% chance of success but the condition recurs, Obi-Wan style, only to be stronger and impervious to further treatment, 20% chance of success but with (potentially debilitating, if not eventually lethal) Graft vs Host disease, and 20% chance of success with no further problems.

He decides to take his 5 years of quality of life, blow his money on a world trip and not have the treatment. Doctors freak out and refer him to yours truly (yeah, my job is fun).

Is this patient being irrational in choosing 5 years of relatively OK life and the world trip of a lifetime over up to a year's worth worth of chemotherapy, total body radiotherapy and a transplant that may or may not kill him and may or may not work at all? Difficult call to make. His emotional state will be a factor, as will be his understanding of his options, but if he is relatively calm and capable of reason and informed of the facts, who is to say his choice is irrational?

 

Assuming that the treatment kills him means he will be dead more or less straight after having it, nothing happening means he is in the same boat as he is in now, recurrence puts him right back to square one and debilitating means a life not worth living to him, then there is only a 20% chance of an outcome that actually improves his situation. Facing such odds his choice is perfectly rational. It is one that is going to be hard for health professionals and family to accept though.

 

His thinking exactly. However many people and indeed patients amongst them would argue that a 20% chance of improvement is better than 0% chance of improvement by not having treatment, and that 20% chance of death is a trivial risk if you're going to die within five years anyway.

See? Tricky. Basically it all comes down to where you place your priorities.

 

Actually no, the doctors are making the irrational argument. Its understandable because his decision goes against every fibre of their being. Going for a low probability chance when there is an acceptable (to the patient) alternative that has zero probability of failure is irrational.

 

Yes, but don't forget that the majority of patients think like the doctors do. For some people quality of life is important; for others a fighting chance is. In fact, I've known patients who choose to have horrendous chemotherapy even when they know it will not save them. For them, fighting back is the defining quality of life.

 

Each scenario, is different. You can't simply take a single conclusion and blanket apply it to every other scenario because two of the many many variables (cancer and death) are common. That would be irrational.

 

Exactly.

 

That's not being selective in being rational though.

 

Rationality is by its nature a selective process. We generally operate on a heuristic, 'rough big picture' intuitive process level. Rational thinking zooms in on a specific problem or issue. So yeah, we're constantly being selective in our rationality.

But...

 

How is voting intention more accurate than actual votes?
Yes polls can be misrepresentative and that's why I'd put more faith in recent results from those council elections, all of which show big gains for the Lib Dems.

The EU says nah, it remains to be seen if they're willing to compromise but somehow i doubt they'll be much in the way of concessions.

Or that your average voter isn't aware of the Lib Dems intention of staying in the EU.

Last time they got near that we ended up with a coalition and seeing how the Conservatives are fairly evenly split between leave and remain they'd probably lose more remain voters than Labour who were mainly in favor of remaining.

How you can say that in a thread that only exists because of Conservative infighting is beyond me, do you really think all 48% of Conservative voters that wanted to remain are going to vote for a party that's taking them out of the EU?

Very true but bearing in mind what I've just said don't you think remain voters are going to punish them for what some probably see as a rather self-serving act of hubris that went terribly wrong.

4m people don't think we can have a re-run, 4m people want a re-run and for many different reasons, the reasons don't detract from the fact that 4m+ people want a re-run, the reasons people want a second referendum doesn't matter, just that they want one.

Everyone always thought Scotland was Labours heartlands, yes we're only guessing but I'm saying that maybe your assumptions on voting loyalties isn't as safe an assumption as it once would have been, we're living in strange times.

Re nonvoters: They don't not vote all the time, like the referendum has shown some people never voted in their lives but thought now would be a good time.

That seems to be stretching the bounds of credulity, the two parties are diametrically opposed, what's more likely IMO is that Lib Dem votes went to the two main parties, 1m odd to Labour and 3m odd to Conservatives, meanwhile some voters from those two parties defected to UKIP, in similar distributions, i.e more Conservative voters defected than Labour.

Well based on how many people voter for them and how many voted to leave 6m people didn't, in other words a large percentage of the UK voted for a 5 year government based purely on their promise to govern by plebiscite, if people are willing to elect a party just so they can leave the EU it's logical (percentage wise of population) they'd do the same to keep us in.

I'd love you to name a forever decision that can't be undone by a successive government.

No i rank the impact as high, just like I'd rank the impact of having your legs cut off as being high, as the sort of thing that can't be undone.

No i didn't, i just think your not putting little weight on people voting for a party they don't agree with just so they can get a referendum on something they see as more important to them.

No we don't but what percentage of the 11m votes for a Conservative government in 2015 do you think were based purely on the offer of a referendum?

Based on the Lord Ashcroft survey only 58% won't have a problem.

No they're not, the best option would be what you want, your best option would be to to get a billion pounds, unfortunately that's probably going to be unlikely so you go for the least worse when compared to what you want.

Well actually it's 37% but i wont split hairs, fact is they're both at risk, yes 37% of Labour voted leave but there not the voters who would defect, they've got what they wanted, they're leaving the EU, the voters who are more likely to defect are those who voted to remain.

 

Off the top of my head council seat by elections:
Not nationally representative.
council by election Turnout usually up to half that of even local elections which are upto half that of a general election.
Liable to have only those who feel most aggrieved to vote rather than an electorate representative of the public that would vote in a GE.
can be confounded with very local issues.

Polls suffer from issues but they're usually in the right ball park and usually reflect a change in support at the very least.

We're not looking for a prediction of outcome necessarily but a change in their polling numbers to the extent where an the effect of major events can be seen.

Also polls usually suffer most from the 'shy Tory" effect rather than the "shy Centre left or centrist effect." Same with Brexit, the polls shown, on balance, shown a slight lead for remain in the week leading up to the referendum.

Funnily enough I heard corbyn's momentum lot going on about council By election success like as if that say's anything at all.

You'd expect at least some people to be aware. If people care that much about remaining or are so worried about it, that they'd have come across it.

42% according to Ashcroft. (who set up a polling organisation to pressure Cameron and brought that pigs head allegation to light).

Floating voters:
Depends entirely upon whether they believe that the conservatives have the best chance of taking us through these difficult times, they seem to do quite well out of that. Wait until a general election and the tories are in full swing with "a vote for anyone but us risks all kinds of devastation" rhetoric. Are centrist voters going to run the risk of "putting a unilateralist with ambitions to give back the falklands, who will sell england out to the SNP, into downing street," as they'll put it, by voting lib dem.

Perennial voters: will make up a chunk of that 42% also who wont switch easily.

UKIP: how many return to the parties that intend to implement the referendum?

When Owen smith talks about disregarding the referendum in one way or another he gets no more popular with the electorate at large or the membership who are remain by majority.

When it was something tory voters voted for?

Sorry imprecise wording, don't like spending forever on these.

The point is how willing are people to vote for one party over another if the referendum is not the referendum they want.

How high do they rank it compared to other policies, personality, risk spread (letting the wrong party into government by voting differently), party loyalties etc

Other issues:
How aware are they of the policy come polling day.
How prominently do the LDs place it.
How much money they have to campaign
How many activists they have.
How far along with the EU by polling day
What effects have actually been felt by 2020, was it the whole death of the firstborn etc

Here's something I recently changed my mind on over the last 18 months.

When wondering how labour can get back Scotland I thought it was that they'd been too close to the Tories on the left right scale in general and on austerity etc.

However unilateralist inclined, lefty, anti austerity corbyn carried on the losses.
Scotland has long been polled as being not much different on the left right scale as the rest of the UK, also.

What Scotland has become and is becoming ever since the devolution to a national scottish parliament is to create a sort of northern Ireland lite (without the terrorism (yet)) reflection of their Unionist vs Republican platform in nationalist vs unionist.

That is the divide in Scotland.

Look at northern Ireland and there are no English parties. That's roughly where Scotland is heading. They will need a single main unionist party and the great parties of Westminster will need to GTFO to avoid perpetual SNP dominance in Scotland.

I'm just saying don't be relying upon them.

Also in the referendums, Scotland and EU, your vote matters exactly as much as anyone else's across the entire country as opposed to a FPTP General election.

People who protest vote often wont vote on where the party stands but who is the party that can put the most pressure on the other two parties without actually getting into government themselves.

I was mainly talking about the seats where liberals came third previously where the vote swung in almost equal proportions from LD to UKIP mainly in labour seats or marginals.

A bigger deal was made in seats where Labour (nearly/actually) lost seats by losing proportions of the vote to UKIP rather than a swing to the Tories. You'd expect the reverse to be the Issue if UKIP were as big a threat to the Tories (long after the tories had banged on about giving the public a say on the EU if they got a majority.)

Probably not a large percentage that would change from the tories but just enough to ward off enough voters that could possibly swing an election in favour of Labour. If any party that wants to insist on implementing the referendum result is going to lose more votes it would be labour. 63% vs 42%.

Any loss the Conservatives feel, Labour would feel more so.

IRAQ WAR

"Gotcha! a wild Corky42 was caught!!"
"Corky42's data was added to the pokedex"

The point is that you see it like having your leg cut off and assume others in your voter demographic do so also, they may just see it as a vote for a stubbed toe.

Or may even have voted for the status quo in which case they may have seen it as a vote against buying a motorbike to reduce their risk of injury at all.

IF, IF it's more important to them than every other possible thing.

At least a similar percentage or more of the 58% that voted for leave. So I think you'd have at most a similar percentage or less (because status quo voters just voted for the status quo rather than being impassioned) of 42% Which in absolute numbers is big difference.

A likely minimum of 58%, the maximum is likely to be higher.

If I went for being a billionaire but massively risked bankruptcy and therefor not being able to get/keep up with a/my mortgage it could be the worst option to pursue, with the worst outcome, whilst also being the best outcome if successful but unlikely.

Likewise remaining in the EU may be one of the best outcomes one might want, but voting for the LDs could risk landing labour/conservatives in government.

So there's risk. And when only two real low risk choices are on the table you don't go balls to the wall chasing your Ideal outcome if it risks implementing the worst outcome.

It's bascially:

Depends on how many david lammy's and owen smith's put off the brexiteers.

The point is they're walking a tight rope between the 43% of their voters who want a second referendum (assuming the proportion of remainer opinion is the same as the 68% of remainers polled that desire for a second referendum) and the 37% who voted leave, with 20% accepting the vote as it was.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall the post referendum debate seems a bit 5 stages of grief from the hardline remainiac group (would have been the same from the swivel eyed loons if boot were on t'other foot).

Denial: "the government wont actually go through with it"
Govt: "brexit means brexit"
Anger: "yeah but what kind of brexit!!! They have no clue!!! "

Bargaining: "yeah but if these get this vote than they can get in or do what UKIP did over 23 years in 4, it's all possible right guys?"

Not saying it is like that, but it all seems like fantasy to me.

 

What's fantasy is a Brexit as the hard-core Brexiteers present it.

• Keeping passporting rights: fantasy
• Keeping tariff-free access to the single market: fantasy
• Negotiating advantageous bilateral trade agreements with non-EU countries in a few years: fantasy
• Repealing the 1972 European Communities Act: fantasy
• Reducing immigration to the tens of thousands: fantasy

None of these things are possible, but it is the Brexiteers who keep mentioning them. If the Retainers are in the Bargaining stage, the Leavers are still in Denial.

 

It's been mentioned a number of times in this thread already, but Switzerland is basically the Brexit model. Switzerland, too, wants all the benefits and none of the obligations, but got told to either play by the rules, or start packing its bags.

That the UK as an even more stalwart EU/EEA member would get something a country like Switzerland cannot get despite all its attempts demonstrates perfectly why basically everything the Brexiteers have said or promised is a delusional fantasy.

At this point the UK is already practically in the EEA due to all the concessions it has received, leaving only the WTO option as the 'Brexit is Brexit' way forward if one is to assume that 'Brexit' doesn't mean 'roughly maintain the status quo'.

Yet again, we don't see Switzerland pack its bags in anger over not getting what it wants from the EU and departing for the greener WTO pastures. Maybe because even Switzerland knows that doing so would be catastrophic for the Swiss economy?

 

Absolutely. Switzerland voted by referendum to end free movement (by a majority of 50.3%) in 2014. The EU immediately started pulling privileges (e.g. Erasmus student exchange). Although Switzerland made a big show about withdrawing its application to the EU, it still hasn't shut its borders to free movement. In fact, it is going back to its electorate with another referendum...

And this is Switzerland: a country running at a budget surplus, that has a strong manufacturing and financial sector and bilateral trade agreements with countries like China. If any country should feel confident at going it alone, it should be Switzerland. But it is doing anything it can to stay in the EEA.

Oh, and I'm not joking when I say that the 1972 European Communities Act cannot be repealed. This is the topic of intense discussion amongst constitutional lawyers everywhere --how to port across into British statutes 40+ years of British laws entangled with and referring to EU rules, regulations and statutes. You cannot simply copy-paste them across into British law by passing a supplementary Bill --these thousands of laws and regulations each have to be rewritten to link with and refer to British statutes instead of EU ones, and ratified by parliament. Else repealing the Act simply creates a huge legal vacuum in British law, especially in the area of trade, which would make it impossible to strike any trade agreements anywhere until that hole is filled with a proper legal framework. This will keep a lot of civil servants busy for a decade...

 

Those things are either mutually exclusive to eachother, stupid or incredibly unlikely or up to all three. So yes fantasy.

But not relevant to my point.

I am talking about what seems to be a fantasy driven by a process of grief that this or that will stop us ending up outside of the EU in one way or another.

I explicitly stated either side would have had people that behaved in such a way if they lost and the first response is: "nuh uh, their side is stupider"

I'm talking about a grieving process of people who voted remain (who invested themselves in the outcome) and lost.

What your talking about is the political fantasy driven by the ideological zealotry, at the extremest and/or stupidest, of swivel eyed loons.

Likewise the most extreme zealous ideological europhiles will/used to have horrendously fantastical and terrible policy positions.

(although the saving grace is that the swivel eyed loons aren't going to get those things where as the federalist nutjob europhiles actually managed to implement a single currency in the Euro. Which is causing and has caused more problems for the constituent countries and the world, and will continue to do so until it either collapses or gets fixed neither of which is happening anytime soon, than any other policy I have ever seen, with very few exceptions. (the few exceptions being fascism and communism ))