E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

At no point did Valo mention your economic status in relation to your ability to think critically. That allegation is entirely your own projection.

If you want a good idea of what Brexit involves, why not read the Flexcit proposal, a 406 page document with graphs, annotations and references by the Leave Alliance (they are pro-Brexit, so no Remain bias here) setting out its arguments for leaving the EU and how it should be done.

Compare this to the arguments given by mainstream Brexiteers and how easy they make the process sound. Even though after 20 years of campaigning and eight months after the vote, they still haven't got a plan and are still not ready to trigger article 50.

 

Not making any implications about your material situation because I don't know it. Besides, you're implying some weird confusing connection between class/wealth/intellect which I straight up don't follow.

All that I was pointing out to is that 'reports' were of varying quality and it did not favour the pro-brexit side. Daily Mail and the likes were using similar candy-flossy rhetoric to yours, hence my question.

You are the umpteenth person in this thread that claims to have read a viable pro-brexit whitepaper prior to brexit happening. Discounting the fact that even the government has only come up with a pro-brexit whitepaper 6 months after the vote (and it's complete junk), nobody, literally nobody has managed to link to a trustworthy pro-brexit report in this thread yet. I will keep asking anyone claiming to have found one/critically read one.

 

You misunderstand me. I found the long term forecasts to be based based on assumptions and on historical data, but we are setting a precedent here by leaving the EU, so how can historical data be compared and assumed to be a reliable indicator for our future performance as a country? I just can't buy into that.

Well it came across to me that you were implying I didn't know the difference between a rag newspaper and a peer reviewed research paper. I still think that is what you were implying.

See my answer to Nexxo above.

 

Just because I don't know for sure that a passing lorry carrying a load of mattresses won't save me is not a compelling argument for jumping off the motorway bridge.

 

And you researched those reports and confirmed the evidence they presented then?

Because if you had, as you've already pointed out, you'd have discovered that they were other peoples predictions of what may happen in the future, and as with any opinion they were subject to someone else's interpretation of the facts, you have to form your own opinion on the subject, if you abdicate the interpretation of facts to someone else then you're depending on someone else's opinion instead of forming your own.

I have an issue with you saying anyone other than you, i, or anyone else had a part in the result, to do so is to admit we didn't form our own opinion, that we depended on someone else's interpretation of the facts, that we don't have a mind of our own and depend on being told what to think, that we're to stupid to form our own opinions based on all available evidence.

I don't want to speak for Nexxo but having read many of his post on the subject I'm fairly certain he has a very strong opinion on where and what the UK will look like in 10 years, now i may not agree wholly with him but i know he's formed that opinion based on substantive and objective evidence.

Now it maybe that his predictions on where and what the UK will look like in 10 years turns out to be completely wrong, however i respect the fact that he's formed an opinion and made a decision based on from that.

 

Well, there is the Flexcit proposal (link above): 406 pages of what I must admit sounds like a fairly decent plan.

Why hasn't it been waved around by Brexiteers as: "Look! We have a plan!"? Because it makes the following points:

- Immigration control is not a good reason for leaving the EU. It won't change much about that. Changing the dependency of the UK economy on immigration does, but is a much more long-term process (and incidentally one incompatible with the Tory government's ideological approach to free market capitalism).

- Leaving the EU is a multi-stage process that would take two decades to do properly, starting with moving into the EEA, creating one's own FTAs and setting up one's own regulatory agencies over time, and if successful, then eventually exiting it altogether.


Not something the Brexiteers want to hear.

So:

1. I'm unhappy. We must do something.
2. This is something;
3. Therefore we must do it.

 

I didn't abdicate the interpretation of facts to anyone. I abstained from voting because I felt that I was not informed enough to decide one way or the other, despite trying. What would you have rather me done, vote based on a whim?

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't form their own opinions, but the fact of the matter is that not every person here in the UK who could vote has the tools and background in academic research to analyse the choices in an academic manner. So they are left with what tools they have. They look for people in positions of authority to give them the lowdown, good and bad and they will use that to form a decision. It may not be the be all and end all but it does play a part. It's not perfect and it's certainly full of flaws but we don't live in some academic utopia with everyone enlightened. As such, the remain campaign failed and failed miserably.

 

Not for me it wasn't. I've been Euro skeptical (read that as Euro undecided) for a long time, I don't trust or like the additional layer of bureaucracy, that is a biased opinion I suppose , I'll gladly admit that. The experts have been way off the mark before as has the weather man. I think the EU is nothing more than a gravy train at it's worst but it does provide real benefits at best. So with that in mind and the fact that the research bears no promises or guarantees I felt I couldn't commit.

 

I think if we had heard more about the actual benefits of remaining in the EU, instead of politicians and campaigners focusing so much on doomsaying, on both sides, I could have been swayed that little bit more. I'm a lay man, I enjoy reading and I like to stay informed, but I do tend to switch off and disconnect from a debate when the sole focus is on the negative aspects of an argument. I guess I wasn't on my own there either. The negative connotations of both sides of the argument should rightly be discussed but when it's all the arguments are about, then it's hard to maintain interest. I wish I had voted now, but I still don't know which way I'd have voted. I will carry on living here and making the best of any deal our government brokers with the EU. All I can do really.

 

Well until you provide some details we can only take you word on the abdication things can't we, and based on what you've said it seems that despite us living in a time where information is more readily available than anytime in human history, that despite that you still couldn't gather enough evidence, facts, or information to form an opinion.

No one is expecting people to have background in academic research to analyse the choices in an academic manner, however it is generally accepted that in a time of unprecedented access to information that people are able to make informed objective decisions that aren't based on feelings or what the guy next door says, that before making a decision that has the potential to drastically alter the status quo, that they'll take responsibility for being well-informed and educated on the subject at hand.

In other words if you're going to rock the boat you best know what you're doing otherwise you best sit still.

Just out of curiosity but isn't the probability of stability higher when going for the not changing option than the change something choice, i wonder if there's some mathematician that's worked out what it is.

 

Sorry, I have to prove myself to you why exactly? You can take what I've written however you like. You can also take your snooty attitude and play that on someone else. Also, are you suggesting I'm lying now? Cheeky mare aren't you!!! Have the balls to say it outright or don't even bother.

So I didn't rock the boat because I didn't feel I could make the call, but somehow you still want to have a pop? You're some piece of work man, I'll give you that. I bet you'd cause an argument in an empty room!!

 

To be fairer then perhaps, the benefits were pointed out, but they were absolutely drowned out by the horror story predictions everyone and their grandma were willing to offer for a slice of airtime? That's what I got from the whole referendum campaign, from both camps.

 

What would have swayed me?

Honesty and integrity, I felt the whole campaign was lacking in both. With anyone who had a point to make I was left questioning both and couldn't make my mind up with many of them. I feel the whole referendum was a disgusting affair, from start to finish. I especially found the remain campaign to be as limp as a biscuit that's been dunked in a cup of tea. Like I said though, I wouldn't like another referendum to happen as it will just add more time to the destabilisation we are experiencing now.

I very much believe in trust, I didn't trust either side and I ended up not trusting the data I read for one reason or another. I was jaded and fed up. Spoiling my vote was easy for me at that time.