Brexit thread - what happens next

yonderblue · 10 Aug 2016 at 15:37

Mr Badger said:
Spam, powdered eggs, utility clothing, ration books, black market petrol...

More like back to horse and cart and that's if we can afford to feed the horses.

Cern · 10 Aug 2016 at 15:47

Isn't SPAM now made in Denmark? So that's off the Brexit Breakfast Menu too

datalol-jack · 10 Aug 2016 at 16:30

Cern said:
Isn't SPAM now made in Denmark? So that's off the Brexit Breakfast Menu too

Never gets old.

Don't worry, sir: we'll all work harder; eat less; dream small; believe big; live from the land; men will be men; Cornwall will finally receive its free unicorn; criminals will be arrested before they commit a crime; foreigners will only be allowed to visit and tour British airports; we'll weather the storm for two years, and when the reckoning in Brussels comes, we'll look so tough they'll give us everything we ask for and a free kitchen sink; yet everyone will love us afterwards, and Britannia shall reign the waves once more (with US-built ships, as we really need to sell our core industries down the river to remain a global player)!

If one has time, one can rewrite this endlessly in terms of campaign slogans, Minfordian economics or plain ol' wishful thinking.

Amp34 · 10 Aug 2016 at 16:37

FoxEye said:
LOLs, according to the Guardian, 49% of Brits regret Brexit, and only 38% think it's the right result.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/04/britain-tough-brexit-deal-voters-eu

No prizes for guessing which side they're (firmly) on.

But on a serious note, if there was a 2nd referendum, I think remain would probably win it.

At least they provide a link to the pollsters website right at the start, so you can look a of the data yourself.

Cern said:
Well, no real surprises in those poll results. The 49% essentially overlaps the Remain vote. The 38% essentially equates to the Leave vote in terms of the amount of the total eligible voters who voted Leave (i.e. once abstainers are factored out). And it's no surprise that people polled in other countries want the EU to play hardball with the UK in exit negotiations.

But also on the Guardian web site is another rather depressing article published today:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...this-money-doesnt-go-to-the-nhs-i-will-go-mad

Depressing because when you read it you see that £350m figure is STILL being taken as gospel. And depressing because this doesn't really seem to have been a referendum about the EU. More it was a referendum about anti-austerity, anti-London, anti-establishment, anti-experts, anti-immigration ... anti anti anti.

And where there's any break from that anti-everything negativity it's blind, naive expectations that Brexit promises that are almost impossible to be fulfilled will be somehow be honoured.

A lot of rude awakenings ahead I'm afraid when the Brexit lies and false promises come home to roost.

There are going to be a lot of unhappy people in Sunderland in the future. Unhappy fishermen because tarrifs haven't changed, unhappy NHS users because the money isn't going to that and unhappy anti immigration people because Sunderland is still allowing immigrants to come over and study. Alternatively there will be a lot of unhappy people as the university goes into insolvency if they do stop immigration...

Amp34 · 10 Aug 2016 at 16:52

Gogl said:
I can't say that progressive, up-to-date, visionary, innovative, socially responsible and intelligent will rush to mind when thinking collectively about Instagram, London Underground, Spotify, Airbnb, LinkedIn, Virgin Trains, Twitter and EasyJet.

Really? All are very successful organisations, many are high tech and leading their sectors. Whether they are socially responsible is another question however.

What those lists show me is one group are internationalist, enjoy communicating and visiting the world, using tech to further their aims, whereas the leave list is basically a load of unhealthy, cheap food choices and sensationalist news outlets.

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior · 10 Aug 2016 at 17:11

Bit more brexit good news?
Oh no its more probable bad news, oh well maybe the unicorns can help defend our shores..

Ministry of Defence 'facing extra £700m costs post Brexit'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37034337

Mr Jack · 10 Aug 2016 at 17:47

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Bit more brexit good news?
Oh no its more probable bad news, oh well maybe the unicorns can help defend our shores..

But our British weapons manufacturers will be helped by this! We can sell more weapons to the wonderful regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt!

StriderX · 10 Aug 2016 at 18:03

Mr Jack said:
But our British weapons manufacturers will be helped by this! We can sell more weapons to the wonderful regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt!

Who suck at using them, unequivocally.

Arab Militaries are some of the worst on the planet, and most of their US made gear is blown to pieces because they don't maintain them well or really honestly give a **** about being prudent about them (As they can just throw more cash at it).

The Yemeni war is a disaster for SA.

n111ck · 10 Aug 2016 at 18:14

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Bit more brexit good news?
Oh no its more probable bad news, oh well maybe the unicorns can help defend our shores..

Ministry of Defence 'facing extra £700m costs post Brexit'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37034337

Its taken 2 months for them to notice the exchange rate? Just lol

Sagalout · 10 Aug 2016 at 21:23

Wow, just watching this Sky report on Brexit. How thick are those fishermen? Voted out as they are sick of being run from Westminster, but love Boris Johnson...neither of which have any relation to being in the EU

Sagalout · 10 Aug 2016 at 21:38

I can't watch any more of this! I'd like to think this is sensationalist reporting by Sky, picking the most stupid people in society to make better TV.

Avenged7Fold · 11 Aug 2016 at 08:35

Sagalout said:
I can't watch any more of this! I'd like to think this is sensationalist reporting by Sky, picking the most stupid people in society to make better TV.

Sky go down the route of having the stupidest guests on TV, Fox takes the biscuit by having the stupidest presenters.

wordy · 11 Aug 2016 at 08:40

Sagalout said:
I can't watch any more of this! I'd like to think this is sensationalist reporting by Sky, picking the most stupid people in society to make better TV.

People making well thought out & reasoned arguments doesn't make half as good telly mouth breathing spastics losing their **** live on telly*.

*On every subject, not just Brexit.

joeyjojo · 11 Aug 2016 at 13:55

The BBC Trust have commissioned a report on impartiality in statistics. This from the FT brexit briefing that just landed in my inbox:

In April, Timothy Garton-Ash warned of the risk of ‘fairness bias’: “You give equal airtime to unequal arguments, without daring to say that, on this or that point, one side has more evidence, or a significantly larger body of expert opinion, than the other.”

Professor Ivor Gaber points out that the BBC gave equal weight to the 1,280 business leaders who signed a letter to The Times backing UK membership of the EU and the (already oft reported) Leave view of Sir James Dyson. It did the same with the warnings of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists and (frequently already cited) pro-Brexit Patrick Minford, and often referred unchecked to the discredited figure of £350m UK savings from EU contributions. Gaber adds that much scepticism was bounced from news interviews to the BBC’s (excellent but much less viewed) Reality Check service.

Perhaps post-referendum reporting lessons should draw from the BBC Trust’s separate review of scientific impartiality, triggered by the contested portrayal of climate change and the MMR vaccine scare. It called for judgement and “due weight” in coverage, as well as better training.

A very serious flaw in the way journalists operate, which immediately reminded me of the way climate science is reported. In that field, even if the mainstream view is supported by literally thousands of scientists (e.g. in an IPCC report) the BBC will go out of its way to find a contrarian (and often non-expert) speaker to say the opposite, lest they be labelled as biased. The result is confusion for listeners.

Sleepery · 11 Aug 2016 at 14:05

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...-because-of-problems-with-women-2015040997156

Cos sometimes you just need to laugh it off

scorza · 11 Aug 2016 at 14:13

joeyjojo said:
The BBC Trust have commissioned a report on impartiality in statistics. This from the FT brexit briefing that just landed in my inbox:

A very serious flaw in the way journalists operate, which immediately reminded me of the way climate science is reported. In that field, even if the mainstream view is supported by literally thousands of scientists (e.g. in an IPCC report) the BBC will go out of its way to find a contrarian (and often non-expert) speaker to say the opposite, lest they be labelled as biased. The result is confusion for listeners.

In other words "waaah! we didn't get the respect and deference we feel we deserve!"

StriderX · 11 Aug 2016 at 14:17

joeyjojo said:
The BBC Trust have commissioned a report on impartiality in statistics. This from the FT brexit briefing that just landed in my inbox:

A very serious flaw in the way journalists operate, which immediately reminded me of the way climate science is reported. In that field, even if the mainstream view is supported by literally thousands of scientists (e.g. in an IPCC report) the BBC will go out of its way to find a contrarian (and often non-expert) speaker to say the opposite, lest they be labelled as biased. The result is confusion for listeners.

Only took them Brexit to realise this?

Whatever, regardless when talking about a letter... a flimsy, emotionally uninvolved piece vs. some whom everyone knows and actually talked about brexit with a face to deal with.

Even if you were a staunch remain'r, a letter never beats a face.

Terminal_Boy · 11 Aug 2016 at 14:19

joeyjojo said:
The BBC Trust have commissioned a report on impartiality in statistics. This from the FT brexit briefing that just landed in my inbox:

A very serious flaw in the way journalists operate, which immediately reminded me of the way climate science is reported. In that field, even if the mainstream view is supported by literally thousands of scientists (e.g. in an IPCC report) the BBC will go out of its way to find a contrarian (and often non-expert) speaker to say the opposite, lest they be labelled as biased. The result is confusion for listeners.

The BBC wouldn't know impartiality if it bit them on the bum.

Caged · 11 Aug 2016 at 15:35

scorza said:
In other words "waaah! we didn't get the respect and deference we feel we deserve!"

Who's the 'we' in that hypothetical situation? The report was commissioned back in 2015.

The issue of having two sides to an argument and presenting both arguments as equally valid in terms of supporting evidence is a problem the BBC have, presumably due to an over-reaction to being accused of bias. Investigating why this happens with a view to making changes is a good thing.

Greebo · 11 Aug 2016 at 16:10

Amp34 said:
At least they provide a link to the pollsters website right at the start, so you can look a of the data yourself.

There are going to be a lot of unhappy people in Sunderland in the future. Unhappy fishermen because tarrifs haven't changed, unhappy NHS users because the money isn't going to that and unhappy anti immigration people because Sunderland is still allowing immigrants to come over and study. Alternatively there will be a lot of unhappy people as the university goes into insolvency if they do stop immigration...

And add in if we dont get a good deal eg no tariff access to the EU, Nissan wont be investing any further in Sunderland.