Brexit Thread

[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.

[Husar]

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.

No worries, I was suggesting nothing of the sort.

[Legs]

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.

House prices may in some part be an indicator of wealth, but they are not an indicator of a residents disposable income, in fact if you look at the link the price fluctuation highlighted for the period is driven by people who may not even be residents of the area, as it notes its people seeking to avoid the upcoming tax on property they don't live in.
Remember the highlighted words, they are yours.
The key factor in assessing disposable income is income, without that you can't do anything with the statistics on house price, then you would need to factor in owner occupation, with and without outstanding mortgage, then the rental sector, then social rental sector then local charges, then transport costs and on and on and on.

The statistic provided means nothing in relation to local wealth or local disposable income, indeed with the article used it doesn't even mean local people.

Everything I highlighted here is offensive

How is it offensive?

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.

Try real life face to face. For example I had an interesting discussion with an archtiect and two engineers today, words you describe as offensive were used plus some actually offensive ones, no one stormed out or wanted to throw things, an agreement was reached on the contended issues based on practicality and facts.

[Legs]

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.

Yes but emotional sentimental notions are harder to defend in the face of reality, and due to their nature will often be more strongly held despite them sometiomes making no sense so there is an emotional desire to still defend the indefensible long after it is a hopeless case.
That is the problem and it is that approach which people set themselves up to be able to claim they are being offended.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No worries, I was suggesting nothing of the sort.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

House prices may in some part be an indicator of wealth, but they are not an indicator of a residents disposable income, in fact if you look at the link the price fluctuation highlighted for the period is driven by people who may not even be residents of the area, as it notes its people seeking to avoid the upcoming tax on property they don't live in.
Remember the highlighted words, they are yours.
The key factor in assessing disposable income is income, without that you can't do anything with the statistics on house price, then you would need to factor in owner occupation, with and without outstanding mortgage, then the rental sector, then social rental sector then local charges, then transport costs and on and on and on.

The statistic provided means nothing in relation to local wealth or local disposable income, indeed with the article used it doesn't even mean local people.

House price indicates rental price, rental price indicates disposable income, as do the cost of mortgage re-payments, actually. Greyblades' argument was flawed in its simplicity, not its logic.

How is it offensive?

I was tempted to refuse to dignify this with a response but that would be pointless.

It was offensive because you dismissed the feelings of others as irrelevant, then described their opinion as drivel and nonsense, which are both insults.

Try real life face to face. For example I had an interesting discussion with an archtiect and two engineers today, words you describe as offensive were used plus some actually offensive ones, no one stormed out or wanted to throw things, an agreement was reached on the contended issues based on practicality and facts.

I try to be nice to people in real life - I get more hugs and free drinks that way.

[Pannonian]

House price indicates rental price, rental price indicates disposable income, as do the cost of mortgage re-payments, actually. Greyblades' argument was flawed in its simplicity, not its logic.

It's ironic that his simplicity breaks down where he tried to introduce complexity into the equation. Complexity of the sort Greyblades tried to introduce only makes sense when one understands the context of the data. In this case, he missed out the history of London and why certain areas are heavily non-white, and the nature of house prices in Greater London. In short, he tried to explain to a Londoner why certain things are in London, without himself understanding what he's talking about. Or my original point, which is that his assertion that Europhilism is the preserve of the white upper middle class who never have to face an immigrant, is contradicted by the fact that the most immigrant-heavy region in the UK was heavily pro-EU. And one of the reasons I have little respect for Greyblades is this argument of his.

Because the EU is how they got there, duh, same reason mexican immigrants vote democrat in the states. I refer to the Europhiles who buy into the ideology and supported inviting the immigrants in in the first place.

I don't have much beef with you, as you start with your own preconceptions, and your arguments, within these parameters, are broadly consistent. Contrast with Greyblades's circular argument, which starts from a wrong presumption (his assertion about the white upper middle class and Europhilism), then proceeds with easily disprovable further assertions to dismiss concrete evidence. This circle of wrongness is typical of post-truth politics, seen here in his argument for Brexit, but seen even more clearly in arguments for Corbyn (see Brenus dismissing all evidence against Corbyn as by nature biased). Concretely disprovable presumptions that serve to reinforce each other and shut out all evidence that may contradict them. Ironically, this mode of thinking was what led Blair towards Iraq in the first place. Even back then, I thought that form of argument was self-evidently stupid, so unsurprisingly I have a similarly low opinion of anyone who goes down the same line of thinking.

[Legs]

House price indicates rental price, ,





I try to be nice to people in real life - I get more hugs and free drinks that way.

No it doesn't. Rental price indicates rental price.
The two can be entirely unrelated

rental price indicates disposable income

No it doesn't, rental price is a factor in disposable income with additional information on net income and other expenses.

as do the cost of mortgage re-payments, actually.

Yes, and?
Are they presented at all?
Did anyone mention mortages in relation to housing and disposable income before the person you are quoting?

Greyblades' argument was flawed in its simplicity, not its logic.

That is not correct, it was flawed in both its simplicity and its logic. As has been demonstrated.

It was offensive because you dismissed the feelings of others as irrelevant, then described their opinion as drivel and nonsense, which are both insults.

Feelings can be irrelevant if they don't support the viewpoint. Drivel and nonsense are words used to describe notions that make no sense. If you take no sense you can see where the word nonsense fits exactly.
How are they insulting?

I try to be nice to people in real life - I get more hugs and free drinks that way.

And if you take the example I put up, there was no animosity, language which you would condider extremely insulting was used, a practical solution was agreed, I make more money, they make more money, which means we all get free drinks.
Thats real life.

[Gilrandir]

For example I had an interesting discussion with an archtiect and two engineers today, words you describe as offensive were used plus some actually offensive ones, no one stormed out or wanted to throw things, an agreement was reached on the contended issues based on practicality and facts.

Were they tied to a chair?

[Montmorency]

Were they tied to a chair?

Crowbars may have been involved. Their empirical, uh, force, is undeniable.

[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.

[Gilrandir]

Crowbars may have been involved. Their empirical, uh, force, is undeniable.

I would wager it was baseball bats.

[Fragony]

Congratulations UK, you are the #1 best performers in the G7 according to the IMF, the doomsday europhiles crave so much will have to wait for a while all is going just, even better since you don't get to have a notorious drunkard licking your face

[Legs]

Trade deals are always good

Yet you vote to abandon one.

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.

Will a trade deal with the "white" countries mean they insist you get rid of agricultural subsidies?
How will that sit with the rural tory heartland?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yet you vote to abandon one....

Actually, when they voted on membership in the EEC a while back (almost completely an economic/trade arrangement) they voted to stay.

From what I read, the large measure of opposition to the EU and the reason for the exit vote centered on the non-economic influences/requirements. I do not believe it was the trade deal portion that motivated the exit vote.

[Legs]

Congratulations UK, you are the #1 best performers in the G7 according to the IMF, the doomsday europhiles crave so much will have to wait for a while all is going just, even better since you don't get to have a notorious drunkard licking your face

What did the IMF actually say.
But look on the bright side, it's a bargain, it only cost £170 billion to do it...well until november when they have to pump more money into the system again to stop it tanking

[Legs]

Actually, when they voted on membership in the EEC a while back (almost completely an economic/trade arrangement) they voted to stay.

From what I read, the large measure of opposition to the EU and the reason for the exit vote centered on the non-economic influences/requirements. I do not believe it was the trade deal portion that motivated the exit vote.

I think most of the people voting didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against.
Some people probably thought they were voting to give millions of pounds to the NHS, I wonder how they felt when they were told the money was going to farmers instead?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think most of the people voting didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against.
Some people probably thought they were voting to give millions of pounds to the NHS, I wonder how they felt when they were told the money was going to farmers instead?

While your example seems a bit over the top, I have already noted my belief in the surprising degree of ignorance among most electorates, so I cannot deny that possibility here.

[Husar]

Congratulations UK, you are the #1 best performers in the G7 according to the IMF, the doomsday europhiles crave so much will have to wait for a while all is going just, even better since you don't get to have a notorious drunkard licking your face

Are you by any chance a speechwriter for Trump?

[Legs]

While your example seems a bit over the top, I have already noted my belief in the surprising degree of ignorance among most electorates, so I cannot deny that possibility here.

What's over the top? It was what the Brexit campaign were claiming they would do with the money sent to the EU. As soon as the vote was in they said it was not happening, then they said the money not going to the EU would have to go to the farmers because the agriculture sector was going to lose all its EU subsidies.
I suppose they said they was going to fund the NHS with the money purely for the sentimental and emotional draw it would have on some voters.
Is that a case of sentiment hitting reality and coming off a poor second as usual when it comes to actual policy?

[Legs]

Are you by any chance a speechwriter for Trump?

i think you have a point there.
What he wrote does make about as much sense as a typical deranged rant Trump spews.