The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[I1L2T3]

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.

 

Give up mate. Predictions are things that could come true. Lies are lies.

 

End of. Dead simple.

[unbeliever]

Give up mate. Predictions are things that could come true. Lies are lies.

 

End of. Dead simple.

 

 

Okay then. By that logic, the UK tax take could be £350m/week greater post-Brexit so it's not a lie. Glad we sorted that out. Night then.

 

Vote for me and you'll win the lottery this weekend. Prediction. Don't know it's not true. Can't call me a liar.

Vote for me and you'll end up marrying a supermodel. Prediction. Don't know it's not true. Can't call me a liar.

 

You only take on this silly dismissive attitude when you realise that you're losing. Come on you can do better than this.

Edited November 30, 2016 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

Okay then. By that logic, the UK tax take could be £350m/week greater post-Brexit so it's not a lie. Glad we sorted that out. Night then.

 

Vote for me and you'll win the lottery this weekend. Prediction. Don't know it's not true. Can't call me a liar.

Vote for me and you'll end up marrying a supermodel. Prediction. Don't know it's not true. Can't call me a liar.

 

You only take on this silly dismissive attitude when you realise that you're losing. Come on you can do better than this.

 

It's still a lie because we don't send £350m a week to the EU.

 

I've not lost anything. Predictions are predictions. Lies are lies. Like I said it's really simple.

 

I'm not going to bicker over this but no way are you going to get away with describing predictions as lies. It's not like remain were predicting we'll find Elvis living in a bungalow on the moon with Val Doonican us it?

 

The predictions could come true. You can't rewrite history over proven lies.

[Flexo]

Vote for me and you'll win the lottery this weekend. Prediction. Don't know it's not true. Can't call me a liar.

Vote for me and you'll end up marrying a supermodel. Prediction. Don't know it's not true. Can't call me a liar.

 

You are Donald Trump and I claim my £5.

[unbeliever]

It's still a lie because we don't send £350m a week to the EU.

 

I've not lost anything. Predictions are predictions. Lies are lies. Like I said it's really simple.

 

I'm not going to bicker over this but no way are you going to get away with describing predictions as lies. It's not like remain were predicting we'll find Elvis living in a bungalow on the moon with Val Doonican us it?

 

The predictions could come true. You can't rewrite history over proven lies.

 

When does a prediction become so profoundly unlikely that one is a liar for claiming to believe it?

 

The EU controls £350m/week of our money. Yes we get some back and more spent on us, but we've still lost control.

I've said all along that I'm okay with including the UK spending, but the rebate should be deducted from the figure. But Gisela Stuart has steadfastly defended the figure and she's pretty convincing. She doesn't think it's a lie.

Edited December 1, 2016 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

When does a prediction become so profoundly unlikely that one is a liar for claiming to believe it?

 

The EU controls £350m/week of our money. Yes we get some back and more spent on us, but we've still lost control.

I've said all along that I'm okay with including the UK spending, but the rebate should be deducted from the figure. But Gisela Stuart has steadfastly defended the figure and she's pretty convincing. She doesn't think it's a lie.

 

An unlikely prediction is still not a lie. It's just not likely. The odds on Elvis being found alive are 2500/1 for example. People wouldn't be lying if they predicted he'd be found. It'd just be very unlikely their prediction would come true.

 

It's not a lie to say that over 3m jobs are linked to EU trade and not a wild prediction to state that those jobs are at risk if we deliberately damage our trading relationship with the EU.

[Gamston]

People are still nitpicking about who said this and who said that. At the end of the day both campaigns were poor and claims were being made by both sides by people who had no authority to deliver any 'alleged' promises or were not gauranteed to be in a position of authority in the future to honour any 'alleged' promises.

 

The UK electorate were the Jury and their verdict was that the UK will leave the EU, which should be the end of the story.

[L00b]

When does a prediction become so profoundly unlikely that one is a liar for claiming to believe it?

When it runs so profoundly against its factual basis, that to believe in it can only translate as either crass ignorance or flagrant bad faith.

 

Which, I believe, is why you yourself objected to the Leave "350m" campaign claim very early on pre-referendum, if I'm not mistaken?

 

There is no objective difference with the Remain "3m jobs" campaign claim, in that that it is undeniable that a number of EU exports-dependent jobs would be put at risk when UK trade with the EU is impeded or restricted in any way (relative to the known quantity of no barriers whatsoever under the past and still current EU membership).

 

All you/we can really argue about objectively (based on collected facts), is whether "350m" was too high a figure (we know it was right away, due to the rebate alone - and no, you can't argue that but-but-but-the UK was going to lose it, because abolishing it was not on the cards) and, reciprocally, whether "3 million jobs" is too high a figure (we don't know yet, because we're not out of the EU yet, and exporters are still mainly holding their breath whilst waiting on May & Co and Brussels/the EU27 to sort the matter out...whilst May handshakes early secret deals with major EU exporters like Nissan).

 

What if the claim had been for 1 million jobs? Half a million jobs? At what level of (aggregate-) volume redundancies and corresponding loss of GDP-creating economic activity does the self-imposed pain becomes worthwhile and Brexiters stop quibbling about estimated job losses?

 

For the sake of accuracy (facts ), it was businesses who predicted the 3m jobs at risk in a letter to the Government, btw. The government (-report) just established that the number of UK jobs dependent upon EU export trade was 3m. And that all dates back to 2011.

Edited December 1, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

When it runs so profoundly against its factual basis, that to believe in it can only translate as either crass ignorance or flagrant bad faith.

 

Which, I believe, is why you yourself objected to the Leave "350m" campaign claim very early on pre-referendum, if I'm not mistaken?

 

There is no objective difference with the Remain "3m jobs" campaign claim, in that that it is undeniable that a number of EU exports-dependent jobs would be put at risk when UK trade with the EU is impeded or restricted in any way (relative to the known quantity of no barriers whatsoever under the past and still current EU membership).

 

All you/we can really argue about objectively (based on collected facts), is whether "350m" was too high a figure (we know it was right away, due to the rebate alone - and no, you can't argue that but-but-but-the UK was going to lose it, because abolishing it was not on the cards) and, reciprocally, whether "3 million jobs" is too high a figure (we don't know yet, because we're not out of the EU yet, and exporters are still mainly holding their breath whilst waiting on May & Co and Brussels/the EU27 to sort the matter out...whilst May handshakes early secret deals with major EU exporters like Nissan).

 

What if the claim had been for 1 million jobs? Half a million jobs? At what level of (aggregate-) volume redundancies and corresponding loss of GDP-creating economic activity does the self-imposed pain becomes worthwhile and Brexiters stop quibbling about estimated job losses?

 

For the sake of accuracy (facts ), it was businesses who predicted the 3m jobs at risk in a letter to the Government, btw. The government (-report) just established that the number of UK jobs dependent upon EU export trade was 3m. And that all dates back to 2011.

 

 

The problem the 3million jobs claim is the wilful misinterpretation of facts in order to dress up a largely unfounded prediction as a fact.

It is a fact that a serious legitimate study was done which made a string quantitative calculation that 3 million and change jobs in the UK were directly linked to trade with the EU. This figure is quite rightly treated far more serious than many of the various estimates that were floating around in the pre-vote debates.

Twisting that hard number of 3 million into a claim that 3 million jobs would be lost if we voted to leave, via the overt or implied lie that all EU trade would be lost and not replaced, is at least as much of a lie as the 350m/week.

 

We may simply have to agree to differ on this. I still think I'm right but if you think one kind lie is not quite a lie, or not as much of a lie as another similar (but not identical) kind of lie; I suppose that's an opinion that you're entitled to. Doesn't work for me though.

[L00b]

The problem the 3million jobs claim is the wilful misinterpretation of facts in order to dress up a largely unfounded prediction as a fact.

How is an argument (or "prediction" if you want) that an exit from EU puts million of jobs at risk misinterpreting the fact that million jobs depend on trade with the EU?

 

Jobs that definitionally "depend on trade with the EU" go far beyond such jobs as people working solely on goods and services exported to the EU. You have those jobs, plus the jobs hinged on trading volume/activity of which the EU market is only a part besides the RotW, and the domestic-only jobs hinged on trading volume permitted by current levels of economic activity that include existing EU exporting.

 

Simplest example I can think of is our own support staff, in specialist legal services: none of them are working 'solely' on EU-bound exported services. But EU-bound exported services represent 25% of our activity aggregate, to which they all contribute to a greater or lesser extent depending on their principal's caseload. I've already explained how and why we can't replace that 25% domestically, and we can't keep the same headcount with a 25% drop in activity. So it's (currently still-) highly likely that we'll shed 1 or more job by 2019, and that is solely down to the loss of EU trade (talking of partial loss of trade is irrelevant to us in context, for reasons I'll not bore you to tears with).

 

Personally, I think that more than 3m jobs are at stake in total here, in terms of both existing jobs (perhaps not anywhere near 3m, but then-) and future potential jobs in years to come, that a reduction in economic activity and growth forestalls.

 

I'd say it's rather different to (mis- ) representing that the UK sends 350m a week to the EU as fact.

 

But yeah, by all means let's agree to disagree.