The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[I1L2T3]

The Huffington Post article is very good (if a little hard in its language).

 

It's not an article. It's a blog post. And it's a blog post from a member of something called 'Get Britain Out' and what he argues are lies are in fact mostly predictions most of which could still come true.

 

I think you've lost a good deal of perspective on this subject.

[unbeliever]

It's not an article. It's a blog post. And it's a blog post from a member of something called 'Get Britain Out' and what he argues are lies are in fact mostly predictions most of which could still come true.

 

I think you've lost a good deal of perspective on this subject.

 

As I suggested earlier, let's keep it simple. What's the difference between the 3 million jobs exaggeration and the £350m/week exaggeration.

Cue the silence....

[Flexo]

It has been mentioned numerous times on SF along with the leave campaign bus one. But in-case you missed it here is a BBC link about a the misleading claims made by both sides.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36397732

 

Thanks but it says:

 

"The committee also finds that it is misleading to claim that three million jobs are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU... Campaigners should be clear that three million jobs may be associated with, but would not necessarily be dependent on, our membership of the EU"

 

It doesn't tell me who made this claim and how?

 

Unbeliever thinks there is no difference between that and the £350m big lie. So who actually said that 3 million jobs are associated with the membership of the EU? How was this claim made as prominently as the £350m thing? I don't recall it being made over and over; emblazoned on the side of a bus and carved into steel?

 

Mentioning something "numerous times on SF" is not the same as driving around in a bus with it on the side!

 

So where are the pictures to prove it?

[unbeliever]

Thanks but it says:

 

"The committee also finds that it is misleading to claim that three million jobs are dependent on Britain's membership of the EU... Campaigners should be clear that three million jobs may be associated with, but would not necessarily be dependent on, our membership of the EU"

 

It doesn't tell me who made this claim and how?

 

Unbeliever thinks there is no difference between that and the £350m big lie. So who actually said that 3 million jobs are associated with the membership of the EU? How was this claim made as prominently as the £350m thing? I don't recall it being made over and over; emblazoned on the side of a bus and carved into steel?

 

Mentioning something "numerous times on SF" is not the same as driving around in a bus with it on the side!

 

So where are the pictures to prove it?

 

 

So if it was never on the side of a bus then it doesn't count? I've never heard anything so ridiculous.

"Where are the pictures". It's words. They were spoken on television and written in articles over and over and over for many years.

Where have you been!?!

[Flexo]

So if it was never on the side of a bus then it doesn't count? I've never heard anything so ridiculous.

"Where are the pictures". It's words. They were spoken on television and written in articles over and over and over for many years.

Where have you been!?!

 

So it sounds like this "3 million jobs" thing was mentioned on a TV debate? Lots of things were mentioned on TV debates but they haven't stuck in the memory.

 

Contrast that with the deliberate use of powerful imagery to make a "£350m a week [for the NHS]" the defining argument of a campaign.

 

So you've answered your question about "what's the difference".

 

I know what you mean about bad claims written in articles over and over and over for many years! Yesterday I browsed through the A-to-Z of British Newspaper Euro Myths. Shocked to learn that on every topic that comes to mind, the British newspapers have made up complete rubbish about Europe, just to sell papers and poison minds against the EU.

[unbeliever]

So it sounds like this "3 million jobs" thing was mentioned on a TV debate? Lots of things were mentioned on TV debates but they haven't stuck in the memory.

 

Contrast that with the deliberate use of powerful imagery to make a "£350m a week [for the NHS]" the defining argument of a campaign.

 

So you've answered your question about "what's the difference".

 

 

 

The 3 million jobs claim has stuck most firmly in the head of pretty much everybody except you.

Edited November 30, 2016 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

As I suggested earlier, let's keep it simple. What's the difference between the 3 million jobs exaggeration and the £350m/week exaggeration.

Cue the silence....

 

The 3 million job losses could happen. The £350m was a lie.

 

Prediction vs lie. Easy to spot the difference. One could come true. One isn't true.

 

Not difficult is it?

[unbeliever]

The 3 million job losses could happen. The £350m was a lie.

 

Prediction vs lie. Easy to spot the difference. One could come true. One isn't true.

 

Not difficult is it?

 

The 3 million job losses was based on a factual report suggesting that 3 million jobs were in some way linked to EU trade. Suggesting or implying that these 3 million jobs were at risk if we left the EU contained 2 whopping lies.

1. That all 3 million jobs which were linked would automatically be lost.

2. That all trade with the EU would cease.

 

We may in fact find ourselves £350m/week better off and £350m/week is the amount of our money that the EU determines the spending of. We currently get half of it in rebates and spending, but it is not in our ultimate control.

 

I don't like the £350m/week claim and I criticised it before the vote, but there is no meaningful difference between this and the 3 million jobs claim.

Nobody in their right mind can honestly believe that all 3 million jobs which are in some way linked with EU trade will be lost as a result of Brexit. They may estimate a total of 3 million job losses but then this is not legitimately derived from the report or from any reputable or official sources, it would just be a personal opinion.

If you say something you don't believe it's a lie. You can't go around stating things that you don't believe on the basis that you don't now they're not true. If you don't believe it it's a lie.

[Cyclone]

You're suffering from cognitive dissonance, you want to excuse the lies on your side and pretend that unproven predictions on the other side were lies.

[unbeliever]

You're suffering from cognitive dissonance, you want to excuse the lies on your side and pretend that unproven predictions on the other side were lies.

 

You're projecting. You want the fault to be on the leave side so that you can justify your otherwise unconscionable rejection of democratic principles. These attempts to twist reality to that end are either disingenuous or highly worrying.

You can't have it both ways. The 3 million jobs can't be an unproven prediction and the £350m/week a lie. They were all but identical exaggerations.

 

The 3 million jobs lie wasn't an estimate of the total economic impact of Brexit. It was an assertion that all 3 million of the specific jobs somehow linked to EU trade would be lost as a result of Brexit.

Edited November 30, 2016 by unbeliever