Brexit Thread

[Legs]

Legs, I'm giving up because you hurt my feelings.

Not because I think you're right, or because I couldn't marshal any more arguments, because you hurt my feelings.

Just so everyone else is clear on that.

Hurt feelings?
Sorry 'bout that,
However given your posts about sentimental over practical isn't it rather telling.
Not of course saying that sentimental notions cannot bring policies, just that reality and practicality are the deciding factors.
To take a MRLparty policy as an example
Ban the hunting of polar bears in the Lake district.
Polar bears are "white" and look nice , the Lake Disrict is British and looks nice, shooting nice bears for sport in pleasant British scenery is not nice and is un-British.
From a sentimental viewpoint the policy is good and should be passed without parliamentary objections and to resounding public support.
From a practical viewpoint it is complete nonsense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hurt feelings?
Sorry 'bout that,
However given your posts about sentimental over practical isn't it rather telling.
Not of course saying that sentimental notions cannot bring policies, just that reality and practicality are the deciding factors.
To take a MRLparty policy as an example
Ban the hunting of polar bears in the Lake district.
Polar bears are "white" and look nice , the Lake Disrict is British and looks nice, shooting nice bears for sport in pleasant British scenery is not nice and is un-British.
From a sentimental viewpoint the policy is good and should be passed without parliamentary objections and to resounding public support.
From a practical viewpoint it is complete nonsense.

Based on the tone and content of your posts I don't believe you're sorry - I think you attack people with your pre-conceptions and make no effort to actually try to understand what they mean. For you it's just about point scoring.

[Legs]

Based on the tone and content of your posts I don't believe you're sorry - I think you attack people with your pre-conceptions and make no effort to actually try to understand what they mean. For you it's just about point scoring.

Hold on, you stepped in to support some dodgy statistics which someone used to represent something they didn't represent. You then went off on a flight of fancy with sentimental notions about a "white" commonwealth and imaginary trade/immigration deals.
So who exactly is going with preconceptions and making no effort to try to understand?
Because as far as I can see that fits your approach entirely.

[Montmorency]

He's not wrong there, Legs.

PVC, even assuming a general popularity for the thought of lower restrictions on intra-Commonwealth movement, there seems to be no actual political impetus for such a thing, and indeed while the benefit would be largely sentimental, the actual political process would bring differences to the fore very quickly. To address popularity in other terms, expressing agreement with a given proposition is the furthest thing from commitment and advocacy. It's a very rare politician who grabs an under-the-radar topic from polling and tries to spin it into a platform. That's why I called the notion "the other way around" - while freely extending such privileges to Commonwealth citizens in the UK without reciprocal obligations would go great abroad, it won't do to think of it as much more than a subsidized museum membership.

[Legs]

He's not wrong there, Legs.

But he is, look....
Have you ever been to those boroughs do you know many people living there?
Come to think of it, have you ever been to London???????

Application of knowledge to claims that were being made and understanding that they do not make sense, no preconceptions.

Average house prices are an indication of neither. If you added a whole raft of other statistics they could form a very small part, but otherwise they are meaningless.

Viewing the data provided and understanding that they cannot be used in the manner in which someone is using them and as such are meaningless. No preconceprtions.

Same with....If you are a resident in the UK you receive access to the NHS.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/he...e-from-abroad/

Turn to the page covering foriegn residents and find the £200 yearly fee for residents who are not extra word residents. No preconceptions.

[Montmorency]

I referred to this:

I think you attack people with your pre-conceptions and make no effort to actually try to understand what they mean. For you it's just about point scoring.

Also, that link seems to be malformed.

[Legs]

I referred to this:



Also, that link seems to be malformed.

Yet I look at what they write, follow their links and then form an opinion on the data provided, where is the preconception?

[Montmorency]

Maybe your preconception on how to approach a discussion. Obviously a less rancorous demeanor would generate more positive responses in turn.

But the greatest concern may be that whatever preconceptions you may hold are what encourage you to lash out, i.e. you can't find a way to respect anything you encounter from many of the Orgahs here and so feel comfortable in treating them callously.

The advice that tends to be passed on is that, when faced with someone who has no redeeming characteristics in your mind, simply don't engage them. Save yourself and others the pain. If you feel that way about most participants here, then maybe this isn't a good forum to stimulate your passions and ideas.

[Husar]

But he is, look....

He is not, at least not entirely.
It's just funny because when I get similar feelings about people whose opinions he shares, he never understands and treats me as though I were bullying them or something.
But anyway, I think I told you before that your tone is very aggressive and I can see why he feels that way.
I don't think you have bad intentions or even that you're wrong, you just have a way of talking to people that is aggressive and sometimes condescending. Not that it can't happen to anyone here, but there are some extremes.

By the way, I have to say when a "conservative" talks about hurt feelings, it's always very ironic, they're usually the ones who tell others to "man up" etc.
I hope you don't take it the wrong way PVC, I think you're a good man, even though you're often wrong.

[Gilrandir]

Our national bank is the "Deutsche Bundesbank", "Deutsche Bank" is a private bank like HSBC or BNP Paribas.

Oh, come on. German has too many B-words for naming important things (Bundesbank, Deutsche Bank, Bibliothek) it's no wonder people can confuse them. Next thing you will be saying is that there is some kind of Bücherei among those.

[Legs]

He is not, at least not entirely.
It's just funny because when I get similar feelings about people whose opinions he shares, he never understands and treats me as though I were bullying them or something.
But anyway, I think I told you before that your tone is very aggressive and I can see why he feels that way.
I don't think you have bad intentions or even that you're wrong, you just have a way of talking to people that is aggressive and sometimes condescending. Not that it can't happen to anyone here, but there are some extremes.

By the way, I have to say when a "conservative" talks about hurt feelings, it's always very ironic, they're usually the ones who tell others to "man up" etc.
I hope you don't take it the wrong way PVC, I think you're a good man, even though you're often wrong.

Perhaps the problem is notions based on sentimentality rather than fact and reason. Emotions are not a good basis for a discussion and they bring a personal attachment and preconceptions with them. Hence the "hurting my feelings" line.
An example would be to look at conference, or some of the comments here on how Brexit is a success. Pure emoptional drivel with no foundation in reality.
conference was rapturous with the announcement of a possible date and declarations that negotiations would start now. The reality , re stated agin by the EU that there can be no negotiations till article 50 is put in. Same with the emotional "Brexit is a success all that bad stuff didn't happen" nonsense, when the reality is that Brexit simply hasn't happened yet.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perhaps the problem is notions based on sentimentality rather than fact and reason. Emotions are not a good basis for a discussion and they bring a personal attachment and preconceptions with them. Hence the "hurting my feelings" line.
An example would be to look at conference, or some of the comments here on how Brexit is a success. Pure emoptional drivel with no foundation in reality.
conference was rapturous with the announcement of a possible date and declarations that negotiations would start now. The reality , re stated agin by the EU that there can be no negotiations till article 50 is put in. Same with the emotional "Brexit is a success all that bad stuff didn't happen" nonsense, when the reality is that Brexit simply hasn't happened yet.

Humans are NOT exclusively rational actors. Sentimentality, Agendas based on organizational politics, tradition... ALL of these influence decisions and should not be dismissed.

There is an old, but rather good book talking about some of these things Essence of Decision, an interesting analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis by Allison that takes on the non-rational aspects of decisions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perhaps the problem is notions based on sentimentality rather than fact and reason. Emotions are not a good basis for a discussion and they bring a personal attachment and preconceptions with them. Hence the "hurting my feelings" line.
An example would be to look at conference, or some of the comments here on how Brexit is a success. Pure emoptional drivel with no foundation in reality.
conference was rapturous with the announcement of a possible date and declarations that negotiations would start now. The reality , re stated agin by the EU that there can be no negotiations till article 50 is put in. Same with the emotional "Brexit is a success all that bad stuff didn't happen" nonsense, when the reality is that Brexit simply hasn't happened yet.

Humans are NOT exclusively rational actors. Sentimentality, Agendas based on organizational politics, tradition... ALL of these influence decisions and should not be dismissed.

There is an old, but rather good book talking about some of these things Essence of Decision, an interesting analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis by Allison that takes on the non-rational aspects of decisions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hold on, you stepped in to support some dodgy statistics which someone used to represent something they didn't represent. You then went off on a flight of fancy with sentimental notions about a "white" commonwealth and imaginary trade/immigration deals.
So who exactly is going with preconceptions and making no effort to try to understand?
Because as far as I can see that fits your approach entirely.

See - this is what I mean. I didn't defend Greyblades' point - I merely called for decorum and pointed out that'd at least tried to use some statistics. You completely dismissed any suggestion that house prices might even be an indicator of the wealth of an area when in fact it is widely recognised that they are, albeit hardly a definitive one.

I then made my own, completely seperate points. This was indicated by paragraph breaks.

He is not, at least not entirely.
It's just funny because when I get similar feelings about people whose opinions he shares, he never understands and treats me as though I were bullying them or something.
But anyway, I think I told you before that your tone is very aggressive and I can see why he feels that way.
I don't think you have bad intentions or even that you're wrong, you just have a way of talking to people that is aggressive and sometimes condescending. Not that it can't happen to anyone here, but there are some extremes.

By the way, I have to say when a "conservative" talks about hurt feelings, it's always very ironic, they're usually the ones who tell others to "man up" etc.
I hope you don't take it the wrong way PVC, I think you're a good man, even though you're often wrong.

If you are suggesting that you sometimes find me as difficult to converse with as I find Legs then then I'd have to say I'm something just short of mortified, and ashamed.

For the record, I don't think I've ever told anyone to "Man up", I'm not that sort of conservative or that sort of Christian.

Perhaps the problem is notions based on sentimentality rather than fact and reason. Emotions are not a good basis for a discussion and they bring a personal attachment and preconceptions with them. Hence the "hurting my feelings" line.
An example would be to look at conference, or some of the comments here on how Brexit is a success. Pure emoptional drivel with no foundation in reality.
conference was rapturous with the announcement of a possible date and declarations that negotiations would start now. The reality , re stated agin by the EU that there can be no negotiations till article 50 is put in. Same with the emotional "Brexit is a success all that bad stuff didn't happen" nonsense, when the reality is that Brexit simply hasn't happened yet.

Everything I highlighted here is offensive, it's all also at least partially redundant to your argument. Your tone is, at best, scornful. I realise that may be perceived as a cruel thing to say and I am genuinely sorry for that but in my view if you participate in debate in this way it is harmful to others.

A foundation of the Backroom's debating style is that we try to treat each other online in the same way as we would face to face. That means trying to avoid saying anything that's going to make someone else either storm out or want to throw something at you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, even assuming a general popularity for the thought of lower restrictions on intra-Commonwealth movement, there seems to be no actual political impetus for such a thing, and indeed while the benefit would be largely sentimental, the actual political process would bring differences to the fore very quickly. To address popularity in other terms, expressing agreement with a given proposition is the furthest thing from commitment and advocacy. It's a very rare politician who grabs an under-the-radar topic from polling and tries to spin it into a platform. That's why I called the notion "the other way around" - while freely extending such privileges to Commonwealth citizens in the UK without reciprocal obligations would go great abroad, it won't do to think of it as much more than a subsidized museum membership.

You may wish to review which benefits we already extend to all Commonwealth Citizens. In essence, if you come here and are granted indefinite leave to remain you can end up running the country. Conversely, of the four most recent Australian Prime Ministers two were British-born, and the Governor of the banks of England is a Canadian.

You are correct that up to now a Trade Deal between the four has not been a political platform, but it has also not been possible. Instead of confederating with the Commonwealth after WWII a succession of British Prime Ministers supported confederation with Europe. However, this policy has never been popular among the electorate. Eventually the electorate voiced this lack of support in a Referendum and here we are.

In a democracy sentiment is important, it is taking us out of the EU even as said EU circles an economic whole due to a refusal to amend treaties drafted with more sentiment than economic sense.

Trade deals are always good - trade deals with countries with similar cultures who are already your close allies are much easier to negotiate than trade deals with the US or China.

[Montmorency]

In a democracy sentiment is important

I recall a couple of years ago we discussed - at least for the United States - that research on polls, lobbying, and legislative measures pushed, discussed, and passed in Congress, that general population sentiment has minimal correlation to legislative activities. In other words, if you're optimistic about such a deal, you have to assume that significant corporate interests can reconcile with each other to lobby for it.