Re: Brexit
 

Agreed.

In terms of the Government reports Ian linked to, they will have been through robust processes with many people challenging them and checking them to minimise human fallibility. In terms of other sources, that's not often a given.

I think it's also useful to understand the purpose of the information including knowing who it's intended audience is.

Re: Brexit
 

Look, let's be honest here. You can present as many reasoned arguments with supporting, fact-based analysis as you like but if people have been sold something that aligns with their political & personal aspirations then you are going to have your work cut out to dissuade them.

The closest parallels are belief systems like religion or the Flat Earth concept: as Mick said, "it’s about believing". Faith demands no proof by definition. The problem we have is this: you can believe any religion and you can sign up to the Flat Earth belief and all it affects is you (and possibly your family). However, when a minority of the electorate drags the entire country to a place where there is a clear & present danger to the UK economy then it matters. It matters because you drag the rest of us there as well.

Re: Brexit
 

I love it when people compare the Millennium Bug with Brexit (and then put "lol").

The MB was a real issue, just like Brexit, and there were a number of issues which if not identified and resolved, would have a severely adverse impact on every day life.

The difference between the MB and Brexit is that no one said about the MB "don’t worry, it’ll be fine, you’re worrying over nothing, just let it happen and we’ll sort it out later, you’re just scaremongering".

Ask anyone who worked in IT for the years leading up to Y2K about the amount of time, resources, and money that was put into identifying and fixing potential issues - the reason hardly anything went wrong is because we identified and resolved the problem, not denied there was a problem.

But I suppose all the "experts" who put the time and effort in didn’t know what they were talking about...

Re: Brexit
 

In fairness, it was me who put lol but Mick who raised the comparison in his post, but I get your point about the behind-the-scenes work that prevented a disaster.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't get it, when the "experts" said there would be a problem, Y2K had not yet happened so surely they should have been dismissed as scaremongers? I mean until something happens it's not real, right?

Re: Brexit
 

No one listens to experts anymore Hugh, according to Arron Banks all we need do is believe, who'd have thought he'd be such a hippy snowflake

Re: Brexit
 

Except that the reason for the concern was explained, and it was logical.

The Brexit scaremongering does not take into account the benefits of leaving and is illogical.

---------- Post added at 07:45 ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 ----------

Those experts who keep changing their minds about what food is good for you (and which is now proved to be wrong)? Who are only just beginning to realise that low carb diets are better for avoiding Type 2 Diabetes? Who keep getting their economics forecasts wrong? Who told us we were heading for an ice age?

There comes a point when you just have to use a little common sense to work out what may or may not be true.

Re: Brexit
 

It takes time to learn things. Especially when it comes to food where you cannot have a proper control group. These people work on the best knowledge of the time and then adjust as they learn more. We know a lot more about nutrition than we did 100 years ago and we'll know more in another 100 years and the people who'll be responsible for that are the experts you dismiss.

Re: Brexit
 

:tu:

---------- Post added at 08:19 ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 ----------

:tu:

Re: Brexit
 

Patrick Minford is one of the experts who makes a habit of getting it wrong, he's mogg and farages go to economist, he claims agriculture and manufacturing will have to be sacrificed for brexit, is he wrong again?

Re: Brexit
 

But noone has provided a worked example of these benefits especially when offset against the negative aspects. You are just hiding behind a wall of noise: shout "scaremonger", "Project Frear", etc. when someone asks you to back up your claims.

It is not an unreasonable proposition is it? To ask for something, anything to backup the claims? Your approach to use "common sense" to predict what will happen is just bonkers.

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------

Specifically the car industry:

Re: Brexit
 

Which of course, means that 'experts' can be wrong, which is all I'm saying. To put the amount of faith in experts that some people do ignores the fact that they have been proved wrong before many times simply because of a misunderstanding or no awareness of the full facts.

Economic forecasts are no different and yet despite the examples given of the number of occasions they have been proved wrong, if these forecasts 'prove' a person's point of view, then this becomes part of their mindset.

There is also the other elephant in the room. Scientists and economists actually disagree amongst themselves. For all these reasons, trying to find some Biblical truth from expert opinions is simply delusional. Listen to what they say, of course, but then apply the common sense test.

---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Er, what about increased trade with the rest off the world, for a start? :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

One of the very minor perks of Brexit, is seeing how the deluded dreams turn into nightmares. Spoilt of course by being part of it all....

Re: Brexit
 

What will we sell the world the day after we leave that we didn't sell them the day before we left?

Re: Brexit
 

And what happened ... nothing (or nearly nothing).

What was the response - what a waste, all that effort and nothing went wrong what a waste vs phew, we did it, nothing went wrong, money well spent.

The same will happen with Brexit or any other future.

Some will say it went well and the right choice other will say the opposite. In this case we can add it would be better if or it would be worse if.