1: Make bold statements with extreme confidence (“I can predict ΔGDPGBR for the next 21 years correct to nine decimal places.”)
2: Forget about it unless you get it right. If that is the case, you need to rub it in.
3: If someone is so petty to point out, that you got it wrong: Explain why your prediction was still kind of correct (in theory) and that you couldn’t have known otherwise. (“The wrong prediction just proves that I really understand what I am talking about.”)
4: Repeat these steps as often as possible. It is a numbers game. Getting it wrong 9/10 times doesn’t matter.
So let me get this straight. We are supposed to believe experts when the predict dire consequences but not when they predict things are not going to be that bad? Or is it when we agree with the prediction then we believe in them? Or are there not really any experts at predicting the economic future and Brexiters were right not to be moved by speculation?
I get so confused.
Pretty much I'd saySo let me get this straight. We are supposed to believe experts when the predict dire consequences but not when they predict things are not going to be that bad? Or is it when we agree with the prediction then we believe in them? Or are there not really any experts at predicting the economic future and Brexiters were right not to be moved by speculation?
I get so confused.
It's not going to happen so don't worry.It annoys me that even if by some miracle the 27 decide to take a conciliatory approach and allow us some kind of deal, you just know this will be trumpeted by the press and politicians as a great victory over europe.
This is an odd criticism to have, Nick. Select committees are there to scrutinise government departments, not agree with them.MPs elect Hilary Benn to chair Brexit select committee
Prominent remain campaigner easily wins vote to chair committee, with Yvette Cooper to head home affairs select committee
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-hilary-benn-to-chair-brexit-select-committee
And some have wondered why much of the Commons isn't trusted on EU policy. They don't even have the perception or humility to decide upon a Leave representative which they respect.
This is an odd criticism to have, Nick. Select committees are there to scrutinise government departments, not agree with them.
This is an odd criticism to have, Nick. Select committees are there to scrutinise government departments, not agree with them.
It's absolutely nothing like that, given one would be denying the actual existence of the scientific phenomenon they're supposed to be overseeing, the other just voted a different way in the referendum. It had to be a Labour-led select committee, and the Leave opposition they put up was Kate Hoey. For most people that's a fairly easy choice.You have to put this into the context of many MPs' past actions, be it toward the Lisbon Treaty or their claims to honour the spirit of the referendum result. And what do they do? Appoint a shifty, vocal Remainer to chair the select-committee responsible for Brexit. It would have been akin to choosing a climate change denier to overseeing that department's committee.
Now Juppé, likely to be the next French president, is supporting moving the border back from Calais to Kent. May just be pre-election bluster, but still...
It's absolutely nothing like that, given one would be denying the actual existence of the scientific phenomenon they're supposed to be overseeing, the other just voted a different way in the referendum. It had to be a Labour-led select committee, and the Leave opposition they put up was Kate Hoey. For most people that's a fairly easy choice.
Gisela Stuart wasn't a candidate, so you can blame her for that. You frequently have chairs of committees from different parties to the government, and therefore much of the time with completely opposing views on the matters at hand, leaving the EU isn't a special case that requiresThe French will have migrants in around the Channel ports regardless, so i imagine that it is mostly rhetorical.
Benn wasn't merely some low profile campaigner for Remain, but a man who appeared in TV studios to put across the message. He stood by all of the economic reports released, and even played Cameron's war and chaos card. The British people have been deceived and ignored over the EU for years, by these very MPs, and yet now you expect there to be trust in them? Gisela Stuart would have had respect across the chamber, and greater confidence among the public. So if Hoey was a problem, there were other possibilities.
Gisela Stuart wasn't a candidate, so you can blame her for that. You frequently have chairs of committees from different parties to the government, and therefore much of the time with completely opposing views on the matters at hand, leaving the EU isn't a special case that requires
I find the recent sense of entitlement among Leavers very odd, as if winning the vote has given them complete authority over the direction of the country, with no dissent permitted. We're leaving the EU, as the referendum decreed, but you can get to feck if you think people like Davis and Fox are going to be allowed to take the country down the most damaging avenues without being challenged on it.
It kind of feels like the attitude of many voters is weirdly akin to a football result more than a political one. They see that their team has won, and kind of just assume that victory means their own side completely get their own, unquestioned way from there. You see this all over the place, where Brexiters tell Remainers to stop moaning every time a complaint is brought up as if we're complaining about a dodgy penalty decision in the 90th minute.
The problem is a lot of people don't seem to get the complications that go with leaving the EU, and the minute complexities which seem to be involved. They tell MP's and the like to "get on with it", as if we just need to meet up with some Brussels officials one afternoon and sort everything out. I'd presume people don't get those complications because, quite frankly, they're not interested - they've made their vote, and don't like the idea of officials getting in the way at all.
(...)
One of the key insights in Arrow’s theorem is that institutions matter: when three options or more are available, different procedures can induce the same society (with exactly the same individuals) to take different decisions on the same matter. We might, for example, end up with a different government depending on whether we use a first past the post or a proportional electoral system. We need to acknowledge this unpleasant characteristic of collective decision-making: there is nothing divine about these rules and about the decisions which are taken using them. The best we can hope for is that everybody (or at least a qualified majority of citizens) agrees on the rules themselves irrespective of the outcome that they deliver.
This is the reason why most constitutions provide a bias in favour of the status quo when it comes to issues of extreme importance, like amending the constitution itself. While ordinary policy is normally taken by simple majority rule, constitutional changes require more complex procedures. These procedures typically create a status quo bias both to protect minorities against a “tyranny of the majority” and to make it more likely that the changes have been carefully evaluated, possibly by different independent players. Broad coalitions must then be formed to pass a constitutional change.
Amendments to the US constitution, for example, must be voted by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate and must then be approved by three-quarters of the 50 state legislatures. In Italy, there will soon be a referendum on a major constitutional reform. This reform has already been passed twice by the parliament (with a “reflection pause” of at least three months between each vote).
In comparison, it is quite extraordinary to observe the levity of the Brexit decision-making process, ever since Cameron committed to a referendum. Brexit is no less important that a major constitutional change (except maybe that it is more costly) and yet, following a consultative referendum, it now seems to be taken as an accomplished, inevitable outcome, which only needs to be implemented (if only we knew how). Brexit is “the will of the British people”, the contemporary correspondent of the divine will in the ancient regime.
Such misunderstandings as to the interpretation of the outcome of the referendum can emerge for many reasons, including short-term political opportunism, but there are at least two other reasons worth discussing. The first is the somewhat naïve view that democracy is the simple implementation of majority rule and that the referendum has enabled us to discover the “will of the British people”. Unfortunately, the absence of written constitutional rules has allowed this simplistic view to become prevalent.
(...)
The British people have been deceived and ignored over the EU for years, by these very MPs, and yet now you expect there to be trust in them?
Juppe seems like a total cock that doesnt seem to understand the eu.Now Juppé, likely to be the next French president, is supporting moving the border back from Calais to Kent. May just be pre-election bluster, but still...
It's absolutely nothing like that, given one would be denying the actual existence of the scientific phenomenon they're supposed to be overseeing, the other just voted a different way in the referendum. It had to be a Labour-led select committee, and the Leave opposition they put up was Kate Hoey. For most people that's a fairly easy choice.
Juppe seems like a total cock that doesnt seem to understand the eu.
Move the border from a 'freedom of movement' loving country in the eu, to a FOM loathing country that will be a non eu country in the future. Wtf?
Oh the IronyOh the irony..
Why do you think for one single second that France would continue to run an expensive and extremely politically divisive immigration camp on their soil (for the benefit purely of Britain) after all that's happened? The French voters overwhelmingly don't want it, and once Britain leaves there is absolutely no good reason from the French perspective to keep it. Let Britain control her own borders is their not unreasonable argument.
Oh the Irony
Its what they signed up for!!
Yes and they get free asylum seekers coming through their borders, if that's what you want then suck it up. He just seems like the next useless French leader from the 'Useless French Leader' production line.They signed up for free movement. Free movement would be not holding them up from reaching their destination.
British company moves HQ to Europe after 122 years of trading in UK, says it ‘can’t afford to wait’ for Article 50
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...oves-leaves-uk-europe-hq-exodus-a7371956.html
Oh the irony..
Why do you think for one single second that France would continue to run an expensive and extremely politically divisive immigration camp on their soil (for the benefit purely of Britain) after all that's happened? The French voters overwhelmingly don't want it, and once Britain leaves there is absolutely no good reason from the French perspective to keep it. Let Britain control her own borders is their not unreasonable argument.
It has a dozen EU employees too.I suppose 122 years sounds sexier than 250 staff.
British company moves HQ to Europe after 122 years of trading in UK, says it ‘can’t afford to wait’ for Article 50
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...oves-leaves-uk-europe-hq-exodus-a7371956.html
in fairness the brexiteers did want us to control our own boarders so you would have thought that would be something that they would support?Now Juppé, likely to be the next French president, is supporting moving the border back from Calais to Kent. May just be pre-election bluster, but still...
.
Benn's lied to the British public more about the EU than Boris? Take the blinkers off Nick, that's just pathetic.
Boris' Euro lies go back to his pre politics days in the Telegraph and Spectator where he admits he enjoyed making up lies about the EU and watching the British tabloids lap it up. Lying is the only thing he has ever shown consistency in as his changing from pro U staunchly backing Cameron to Brexit is the only option stabbing Cameron in the back demonstrates yet somehow he has been appointed as Foreign Secretary. Surely that is far more worrying.For long-standing Eurosceptics like myself this goes back many years, and is not some reaction to this referendum or the past two years of immigration stories. Even our new PM is no immune from criticism in this regard, particularly in regard to the EAW.
Benn, on the other hand, was a supporter of the Lisbon Treaty, and has voted against referenda throughout his career. He is also a consistent supporter of further integration, particularly in regard to Justice. What are his credentials for being a fair arbiter here?
It's amazing the lengths Brexiteers go to to deny the impact of the decision on the economy and general business decisions. It's almost as if they want to believe something they know is not true.
35% of the UK Paul, and declining. Please don't tar all of us with the aspirations of the Brexiters, there were at least as many of us who realised their goals were ludicrous and their plans non-existent but sadly too many that didn't even bother to voice an opinion.They also think the rest of Europe are duty bound to help them get themselves out of the mess they are gradually sinking into. The UK decided to leave, the UK has to deal with the consequences and stop blaming everyone else for their own poor government and deluded aspirations.
The UK want control of their borders, they want their own trade deals etc - deal with the consequences, maybe a bit more forethought beforehand and a plan, no-one is going to bend over backwards to help them.
Controlling French one's too, making sure they do it properlyin fairness the brexiteers did want us to control our own boarders so you would have thought that would be something that they would support?
It's amazing the lengths Brexiteers go to to deny the impact of the decision on the economy and general business decisions. It's almost as if they want to believe something they know is not true.
Controlling borders means allowing loads of illegal people over your borders does it? I see, I get it, many wouldn't. Germany likes to take loads in, why don't they go there?They also think the rest of Europe are duty bound to help them get them out of the mess they are gradually sinking into. The UK decided to leave, the UK has to deal with the consequences and stop blaming everyone else for their own poor government and deluded aspirations.
The UK want control of their borders, they want their own trade deals etc - deal with the consequences, maybe a bit more forethought beforehand and a plan, no-one is going to bend over backwards to help them.
Folkestone/Calais and Dover/Calais are our only two borders that actually function with any semblance of efficiency. I really don't want to know how badly they can feck up a queue of cars given the way they handle people and planes at Heathrow and Gatwick.Controlling French one's too, making sure they do it properly
Controlling borders means allowing loads of illegal people over your borders does it? I see, I get it, many wouldn't. Germany likes to take loads in, why don't they go there?
