Depository for off topic / political posts (NO brexit related posts please)

I am more convinced than ever whatever the Brexit outcome it will be all but impossible to conclude at least for many years whether it was the “right” or the “wrong” result. Those who voted in favour wanted Brexit for so many different reasons. Also the financial statistics are sufficiently buried in a host of claim and counter claim that it is very difficult to reach any unbiased conclusion. As Peter commented earlier (and this isnt a criticism) 2, 3, 4 % or whatever is in the noise and he is probably right, but it will take a huge shift in a particular economic statistic to convince anyone that Brexit was “good” or “bad”. Perhaps there is no “good” or “bad” ultimately, it is a different way of running our affairs that undoubtedly will have some benefits and some disadvantages. I guess that will always be the issue whenever nations come together, is the whole better served by the power of the many, or are we better off being governed by the few?

As to the telling of lies, I suspect many believe what they have said. It has proved very difficult in open debate for either side to conclusively “prove” the numbers were massaged. There are clearly some extraordinarily wealthy supporters of Brexit, and one suspects at least some of these didnt support Brexit for purely alturistic reasons, but because they believe they will prosper.

As to water while I take on board the idea of collecting water for yourself, this seems to me to be contrary to working as a collective. In theory it should be far more efficient to work as a collective. The function of meters seems to be concerned with penalising a few that would abuse the sytem unreasonably, but there will always be those people. Surely it is better to avoid a system that encourages a small number of wealthy individuals sinking huge tanks in their gardens?

I don’t believe the Brexit vote actually had much to do with the EU, but instead had everything to do with the banking crisis.

Years of austerity having a drip, drip effect of frustration and wanting to ‘stick it to the man’. People felt this wasn’t their fault, and yet they had to pay for the cleanup.

Perhaps there is no “good” or “bad” ultimately, it is a different way of running our affairs that undoubtedly will have some benefits and some disadvantages.

I think that is exactly right. Different people who voted Out voted for different reasons or a mixture of reasons. But nobody I know thought Out would be a road to riches. A road to independence from what many saw as the Brussells dictatorship, definitely.

However the losers are easy to pinpoint (e.g. the above mentioned academic research scene) while the gains are more nebulous. So those criticising have an easy high ground

Surely it is better to avoid a system that encourages a small number of wealthy individuals sinking huge tanks in their gardens?

Yes, and anyway very few people would do that. It’s a really big job. And that’s for the garden only. If you want to do things like toilet flushing with it, the plumbing becomes really difficult unless it is a new or empty house.

Living in West coast of Scotland we have not much call for hose pipe bans, but do sympathise with our Southern based cousins who seem to have water issues frequently.

The whole Brexit vote was a fallacy because no one really knew, nor could foretell, what a leave vote, or a remain vote would actually mean. There was zero information for anyone from the top to bottom of society to make a sound judgement.That has been superbly evidenced by the shambolic approach of the Gobment who actually do not know, even now, what they actually want.As in all pantomimes it will be alright on the night, we will no doubt be fed another dose of gobs..te, everyone will breath a collective sigh of relief, go to sleep, and wake up to another day. The collateral damage will only be evident in years to come. Our kids will say, that went well, or what a bloody disaster that was. Time will tell.

Now Indy Ref2………….

The whole Brexit vote was a fallacy because no one really knew, nor could foretell, what a leave vote, or a remain vote would actually mean.

That’s correct, and one would have expected Brussells to make it as hard as possible to prevent further European disintegration, but to argue that one should not do something because the outcome is not clear all the way forward is like telling people to never divorce. And in that case the outcome is certain to be extremely financially grim for half of them, and often both of them.

If one looks at the specifics of international trade, etc, the discussion becomes a lot less emotional, and very different.

Peter the analogy is useful and commonly used. I am slightly uncomfortable with the analogy however because in my experience matrimonial divorce is incredibly hard (much harder than most anticipate) but depsite this, I hardly ever find anyone who would have it any other way (I mean the matrimonial aspect, not all the other aspects.) Of course there is the very odd exception.

This is different. The divorce is painful, but the outcome much less certain, because as I said earlier, I expect it will be difficult to know if it was a good or bad decison, so we may not look back in years to come and say thank God, or, if there are some that do, plenty will not.

I think the two are similarly uncertain. You could divorce and spend a decade alone (especially if like many you don’t get off your backside and start looking). The financial settlement usually impoverishes the one who came in with more assets, often it impoverishes both parties if there wasn’t enough in the pot to start with. You then usually end up with a spiteful ex who does lots of nasties (especially via the kids) – this is just like Brussels, before and after brexit. I have met several women who would spit on their ex husband’s grave 30 years on… But if the parties are able to move on and find a happy life, things are a lot easier, and similarly things will be easier post-brexit if Brussels finds a lot of other issues to deal with which distract it from continually looking for a way to shaft the UK (and I suspect that will happen – look at what is happening in Italy and Austria; neither can be ignored or screwed like Greece). And a lot of people marry for money (or financial security if you like), exactly like a lot of the smaller countries joined the EU mostly for the handouts

So I see no real difference between the two

LeSving,

But seriously, I don’t think it’s as much about trust, as it about peoples will (and right) to remove an unfit government.

You are right, it was more complex. I would identify 3 main reasons why the vote went as it did:
- Because the people regard the EU as a undemocratic bureaucracy with hegemonial ambitions, led by states they do not look on friendly . That group also fell for the contiuous argument employed by many governments before Brexit to blame the necessity of any unpopular measure on the EU, regardless if it was so or not.
- Because they felt that they have not been served by the governments the way they should have been and wanted to replace them and were clear that the government would fall if they voted yes. I reckon some of them even suspected that a lot of stuff the governments blamed on the EU were not even the fault of the EU but their general disgust for the political class was enough.
- Because the radicals in the campaign lead a very vocal and engagd campaign aimed at those who were easiest to be influenced, the uneducated and the angry. Had they done this with facts and true arguments, nothing wrong. But what some of them did do was to eploy tactics right out of ole Goebbels book: Propaganda, outright wrong claims and totally made up stuff with a lot of racism and bigotry thrown in. Unfortunately this will appeal to some parts of the population as examples of radical parties winning elections have shown eg inGermany but also elsewhere.

In the end, it was not one reason or two but a combination of factors which led different fractions to vote yes.

But as a American friend of mine once said about the US elecions: It is rarely the 80% of people who will vote democrat or republican regardless of who runs, it is the 20% who actually listen to the debates and make up their minds individually who will determine the vote. I guess that was true in both Brexit and the Trump election.

Peter – now I agree with you, all those similarities look supicioulsy like the negative aspects of Brexit to which we look forward!

So no real difference except after all the pain the parties knew they wanted the divorce, and are as certain, maybe even more certain, a few miles down the track, whereas with Brexit I suspect about half will be pleased with the outcome, and half not.