BREXIT - Why?

CLAPTON

veryintrigued wrote: »

Went to Sean Lock gig recently and he suggested that 'Anyone over 70 shouldn't be allowed to vote as they've b@ggered up the world enough'.

Made me smile.

yes
presumbaly any who is 53 has had at least 30 year b@ggering up the world too

bowlhead99

BananaRepublic wrote: »

So in short, we shoud stay because companies do not like uncertainty. That, to be honest, is the most pathetic reason for a decision. We should stay, or leave, because we think that it is in our best long term interests. And not because some American multinational does not like uncertainty.

I didn't say we should stay because companies do not like uncertainty.

My comments were in response to BucksLady who said they didn't buy into the idea of there being any chaos or mayhem if we walk away, and to uk1 who wanted us to "name a few manufacturers considering opening up in the UK that we will possibly lose? I haven't read of any".

So, it seemed sensible to give examples of companies who have within the last week written to their staff or the press to highlight the value they place on UK being within Europe and how it has driven some of their location and investment decisions and the significant value that as investors, they place on certainty.

As such, it furthers the discussion and perhaps enlightens some who haven't been involved in making strategic business decisions. To trivialise it by saying something along the lines of "ooh, well lets continue our commitment to closer union that we signed up to in 1957 just because Microsoft says so" is deliberately missing the point.

uk1 wrote: »

What has struck me about the two sides in the debate I have seen developed on TV and in the press, and in threads like this, is that I have noticed a tendancy for the remainers to see things in a highly polarised way ie no downsides to remaining and only downsides to leaving, whereas the leavers seem mostly to see advantages and disadvantages to both options, but have arrived at a conclusion that out on balance it is better to exit than remaining in.

It seems quite ironic that you are characterising the remainers to see things in a highly polarised way rather than ups and downs, when in fact *you* are prejudging all the bremainers as being blinkered idiots who have not thought it through, while believing the brexiters to be well reasoned and smart who have made their conclusions rationally. A somewhat polarised view, n'est ce pas?

I am sure the people on the other side of the fence to you would say that they have evaluated the arguments properly but think that on balance we should stay, while they believe that people on the exiting side of the fence have only made a cursory examination of the facts before deciding that anything is better than being ruled by eurocrats.

jimjames

uk1 wrote: »

since when has "balanced" meant the same as "one sided"?

Jeff

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's one sided or not balanced.

CLAPTON

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I didn't say we should stay because companies do not like uncertainty.

My comments were in response to BucksLady who said they didn't buy into the idea of there being any chaos or mayhem if we walk away, and to uk1 who wanted us to "name a few manufacturers considering opening up in the UK that we will possibly lose? I haven't read of any".

So, it seemed sensible to give examples of companies who have within the last week written to their staff or the press to highlight the value they place on UK being within Europe and how it has driven some of their location and investment decisions and the significant value that as investors, they place on certainty.

As such, it furthers the discussion and perhaps enlightens some who haven't been involved in making strategic business decisions. To trivialise it by saying something along the lines of "ooh, well lets continue our commitment to closer union that we signed up to in 1957 just because Microsoft says so" is deliberately missing the point.


It seems quite ironic that you are characterising the remainers to see things in a highly polarised way rather than ups and downs, when in fact *you* are prejudging all the bremainers as being blinkered idiots who have not thought it through, while believing the brexiters to be well reasoned and smart who have made their conclusions rationally. A somewhat polarised view, n'est ce pas?

I am sure the people on the other side of the fence to you would say that they have evaluated the arguments properly but think that on balance we should stay, while they believe that people on the exiting side of the fence have only made a cursory examination of the facts before deciding that anything is better than being ruled by eurocrats.

obviously most of the CEOs of major companies of the UK, made very careful evaluation of the effect of the UK NOt joining the euro and came to the conclusion that GDP would fall, that unemployment would rise, that UK companies would be disadvantaged etc etc (although none predicted WW3 as far as I know)
None of these people or their companies try to justufy their then views on the matter any more, other than saying that all the other CEOs held that view.

worth considering.

uk1

jimjames wrote: »

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's one sided or not balanced.

Just because you agree with it, it doesn't make it balanced.

Your go.

uk1

bowlhead99 wrote: »

It seems quite ironic that you are characterising the remainers to see things in a highly polarised way rather than ups and downs, when in fact *you* are prejudging all the bremainers as being blinkered idiots who have not thought it through, while believing the brexiters to be well reasoned and smart who have made their conclusions rationally. A somewhat polarised view, n'est ce pas?

.

I think you are confusing my posts with someone else's.

If you re-read my post I used the phrases "a tendency" and "seemed mostly". Would you like the words explained to you?

uk1

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously most of the CEOs of major companies of the UK, made very careful evaluation of the effect of the UK NOt joining the euro and came to the conclusion that GDP would fall, that unemployment would rise, that UK companies would be disadvantaged etc etc (although none predicted WW3 as far as I know)
None of these people or their companies try to justufy their then views on the matter any more, other than saying that all the other CEOs held that view.

worth considering.

It is human nature that the ceos of big corporations want to minimise turbulence and uncertainty. They only like change that they make for others rather than change done to them.

It is ironic that many of the people who have been highly vocal in society and politics about how out of synch the aims and behaviour of big business is with ordinary people are now telling us that we should listen to them carefully and trust that what they are telling us now is somehow philanthropic and in our own best interests as individuals rather than their shareholders.

I think it is very kind of them.



Jeff

bowlhead99

uk1 wrote: »

If you re-read my post I used the phrases "a tendency" and "seemed mostly". Would you like the words explained to you?

Sure, you can pretend you come from a completely balanced and neutral standpoint if you like, and are just sitting on the fence watching the people on both sides dispassionately, and have not already formed a view which predisposes you to see good qualities in the people who share that view and become dismissive of the other side.

To me it seems like you are 'mostly' giving those bremainers short shrift because you believe them to to be wrong and naive and have reached their conclusions rashly, while you have a 'tendency' to portray the people who share your view as being the ones who have got it right because they are older more experienced people which has given them wisdom and they've fully thought it through; or at least - they must be smart because they've 'generally' come to the same correct conclusion as you.

It's perfectly possible to make a polar opposite statement and say I 'mostly' observe people in the remain camp coming up with rational measured conclusions after evaluating the facts about how it may affect them over the next half century plus, while the old duffers in the exit camp who might not have half a century left have a 'tendency' to believe some BS scaremongering about how terrible it would be to get some economic migrants or how it's a raw deal to to be a net taxpayer to the EU instead of hoarding their cash stash to themselves.

For the avoidance of doubt, no thanks, you do not need to explain 'mostly' and 'tendency' to me. You're basically trying to make a point that the people on your side have done their homework and the others haven't. You can moderate that by saying 'mostly' - and indeed you have to, because otherwise it would be too easy to find exceptions and refute it immediately by giving one or two examples - but it is clear you just want to say your side is smarter than the other by giving us an anecdote about how lots of people who agree with you are smart and have thought it through while lots who disagree are not and haven't.

I think you are confusing my posts with someone else's.

As I quoted the piece I was reacting to, I doubt it.

hoc

Vote out and... we will figure it out later? Out has not put forward any serious options on anything, the obvious annoyances with the EU have been voiced but no serious alternatives proposed. There isn't even a consistent Out, it's several branches complaining about similar things without any realistic solutions. I was willing to be convinced going into this referendum but Out's lies in the last few days (not exaggerations, but deceitful intentional lies) have made it an easy decision.

uk1

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Sure, you can pretend you come from a completely balanced and neutral standpoint if you like, and are just sitting on the fence watching the people on both sides dispassionately, and have not already formed a view which predisposes you to see good qualities in the people who share that view and become dismissive of the other side.

To me it seems like you are 'mostly' giving those bremainers short shrift because you believe them to to be wrong and naive and have reached their conclusions rashly, while you have a 'tendency' to portray the people who share your view as being the ones who have got it right because they are older more experienced people which has given them wisdom and they've fully thought it through; or at least - they must be smart because they've 'generally' come to the same correct conclusion as you.

It's perfectly possible to make a polar opposite statement and say I 'mostly' observe people in the remain camp coming up with rational measured conclusions after evaluating the facts about how it may affect them over the next half century plus, while the old duffers in the exit camp who might not have half a century left have a 'tendency' to believe some BS scaremongering about how terrible it would be to get some economic migrants or how it's a raw deal to to be a net taxpayer to the EU instead of hoarding their cash stash to themselves.

For the avoidance of doubt, no thanks, you do not need to explain 'mostly' and 'tendency' to me. You're basically trying to make a point that the people on your side have done their homework and the others haven't. You can moderate that by saying 'mostly' - and indeed you have to, because otherwise it would be too easy to find exceptions and refute it immediately by giving one or two examples - but it is clear you just want to say your side is smarter than the other by giving us an anecdote about how lots of people who agree with you are smart and have thought it through while lots who disagree are not and haven't.

As I quoted the piece I was reacting to, I doubt it.

What you actually did was misquoted it and misrepresented it then reacted to it. You even said I called the stayers "idiots" which I most certainly did not. You seemed to prove my point about polarising though.

Jeff

ps. I "thanked" you for your post because you put a hell of an effort into contradicting what I didn't say