The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[phil752]

I'm not demeaning anybody, except the people who are leading us off a cliff.

 

how do you know i dont.

[apelike]

Brexit Britain can no longer be seen as a serious country

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/05/theresa-may-brexit-britain-uk-europe-liberal?CMP=fb_gu

 

And this is from a Dutch pro-European blogger and writer who happens to think banker are victims and we should hug them!

[silentP]

Brexit Britain can no longer be seen as a serious country

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/05/theresa-may-brexit-britain-uk-europe-liberal?CMP=fb_gu

 

I agree. We're a joke.

 

Why is one newspaper more believable over another? It's just an opinion

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2017 at 02:58 ----------

 

how do you know i dont.

 

They don't, it's a view driven by frustration

Edited May 9, 2017 by silentP

[Hairyloon]

Why is one newspaper more believable over another? It's just an opinion

 

Again, that is an Ad hominem question (or Ad newpaparium if you must).It is not whether the newspaper is believable, but the article. On that count, you just have to read it and give it due consideration. Try to be wary of confirmation bias.

[NigelFargate]

What happened before was that it didn't happen on this scale. To translate that - the economy was a lot smaller. Reducing migration is false economy, the 'less immigrants means more British jobs' equation doesn't work. British unemployment is already very low and friction unemployment makes up the majority of that number. That means that companies will start to struggle filling vacancies when there are fewer migrants.

 

This is really straight forward Economics, but it seems to be too big a concept for the Prime Minister unless she is indeed Strong and Stably lying about bringing migration down again.

 

Economics is rarely straight forward. I think the bigger concept pro-immigrationists tend to ignore is that migration is demand-creating as well as supply-filling. Yes, it is perfectly rational for employers to want an endless supply of cheap labour, but it is not necessarily rational for the country as a whole.

[L00b]

Why is one newspaper more believable over another? It's just an opinion

I1L2T3 agreeing with the article is an opinion (as you correctly point out).

 

But that does not take anything away from the facts presented in the article which, being facts, are entirely 'believable'.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, those facts in that article are:

• May's government is pursuing Brexit
  
• May's government is getting lauded by Trump, LePen, Orban, Wilders <...> for it
  
• May claimed that the EU is trying to influence the elections in Britain through a leak to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (that is as yet unproven, the fact here is that May claimed it)
  
• Britain is not the centre of the world
  
• British writer Martin Amis once wrote that the UK had responded to the loss of empire by “embracing frivolity”.

Few newspaper are more believable than others. But commonsensically and objectively at least, those very few papers like the Guardian, the Washington Post, Le Monde and Die Welt, with a few Pulitzer winners on their editorial and writing staff, should be considered generally more believable than other papers factually proven to be lying about the EU like the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph.

 

For the rest (and in connection with stats in the linked article's closing paragraph), perhaps look up the expression "confirmation bias"

Edited May 9, 2017 by L00b

[NigelFargate]

I1L2T3 agreeing with the article is an opinion (as you correctly point out).

 

But that does not take anything away from the facts presented in the article which, being facts, are entirely 'believable'.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, those facts in that article are:

• May's government is pursuing Brexit
  
• May's government is getting lauded by Trump, LePen, Orban, Wilders <...> for it
  
• May claimed that the EU is trying to influence the elections in Britain through a leak to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (that is as yet unproven, the fact here is that May claimed it)
  
• Britain is not the centre of the world
  
• British writer Martin Amis once wrote that the UK had responded to the loss of empire by “embracing frivolity”.

Few newspaper are more believable than others. But commonsensically and objectively at least, those very few papers like the Guardian, the Washington Post, Le Monde and Die Welt, with a few Pulitzer winners on their editorial and writing staff, should be considered generally more believable than other papers factually proven to be lying about the EU like the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph.

 

For the rest (and in connection with stats in the linked article's closing paragraph), perhaps look up the expression "confirmation bias"

 

The article tells us far more about the mindset of continental European federalists than it does about the UK, which the author clearly has no understanding of. It is a typical piece of sneering and tendentious clickbait of a kind which no doubt has appeal among Guardian readers.

 

Is it a fact that Britain sees itself as the centre of the world? I know of no one in the UK who believes this;

 

Is it a fact that the UK wants to be part of the Single Market? May has made it very clear that it does not;

 

Is it a fact that Britain has responded to the loss of empire by embracing frivolity? This is a matter of opinion (about which I strongly disagree) not an established fact:

 

yes, Brexit has been supported by various figures on the far right. But these are vastly outnumbered by ordinary voters who do not hold extremist views and also by many moderate and serious commentators (even by some on the left, such as Brendan O'Neill);

 

The leak to the FAZ was clearly designed to undermine May. It was unhelpful to say the least to do this in the middle of a domestic election;

 

The author seems obsessed with the idea that The UK is behaving 'irrationally', but he provides no convincing evidence of this at all.

Edited May 9, 2017 by NigelFargate

[silentP]

I1L2T3 agreeing with the article is an opinion (as you correctly point out).

 

But that does not take anything away from the facts presented in the article which, being facts, are entirely 'believable'.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, those facts in that article are:

• May's government is pursuing Brexit
  
• May's government is getting lauded by Trump, LePen, Orban, Wilders <...> for it
  
• May claimed that the EU is trying to influence the elections in Britain through a leak to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (that is as yet unproven, the fact here is that May claimed it)
  
• Britain is not the centre of the world
  
• British writer Martin Amis once wrote that the UK had responded to the loss of empire by “embracing frivolity”.

Few newspaper are more believable than others. But commonsensically and objectively at least, those very few papers like the Guardian, the Washington Post, Le Monde and Die Welt, with a few Pulitzer winners on their editorial and writing staff, should be considered generally more believable than other papers factually proven to be lying about the EU like the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph.

 

For the rest (and in connection with stats in the linked article's closing paragraph), perhaps look up the expression "confirmation bias" :)

 

 

I intend to, I find it helps to understand a little of what fellow posters are talking about

[L00b]

Is it a fact that Britain sees itself as the centre of the world? I know of no one in the UK who believes this;

Which is why I stated that Britain is not the centre of the world is a fact.

Is it a fact that the UK wants to be part of the Single Market? May has made it very clear that it does not;

I did not excerpt that from the article in my list, as a fact or otherwise. So I'm afraid I don't understand where it comes from, in your reply to my post.

Is it a fact that Britain has responded to the loss of empire by embracing frivolity? This is a matter of opinion (about which I strongly disagree) not an established fact:

Which is why I stated that a writer wrote this is a fact, not the expression itself.

yes, Brexit has been supported by various figures on the far right. But these are vastly outnumbered by ordinary voters who do not hold extremist views and also by many moderate and serious commentators (even by some on the left, such as Brendan O'Neill);

Trouble is, those figures are influential public figures, unlike the ordinary voters. Like or not, whatever they support or laud, necessarily complies with their political worldview.

The leak to the FAZ was clearly designed to undermine May. It was unhelpful to say the least to do this in the middle of a domestic election;

Whereas the outright lies peddled on sensationalist front pages by Brit tabloids have been helpful to the EU for 30+ years, eh?

 

Your double standards are slipping a bit.

The article tells us far more about the mindset of continental European federalists than it does about the UK, which the author clearly has no understanding of. It is a typical piece of sneering and tendentious clickbait of a kind which no doubt has appeal among Guardian readers.

Which is your opinion, of course.

 

As usual deflecting, blocking, obfuscating, <...> whenever anything remotely anti-Brexit gets posted and/or linked, notwithstanding the objectivity of a post about it.

 

Yawn, tbh

Edited May 9, 2017 by L00b

[NigelFargate]

Which is why I stated that Britain is not the centre of the world is a fact.

I did not excerpt that from the article in my list, as a fact or otherwise. So I'm afraid I don't understand where it comes from, in your reply to my post.

Which is why I stated that a writer wrote this is a fact, not the expression itself.

Trouble is, those figures are influential public figures, unlike the ordinary voters. Like or not, whatever they support or laud, necessarily complies with their political worldview.

Whereas the outright lies peddled on sensationalist front pages by Brit tabloids have been helpful to the EU for 30+ years, eh?

 

Your double standards are slipping a bit.

Which is your opinion, of course.

 

As usual deflecting, blocking, obfuscating, <...> whenever anything remotely anti-Brexit gets posted and/or linked, notwithstanding the objectivity of a post about it.

 

Yawn, tbh

 

The point of your post was the claim that the article was 'factual', whereas it is no such thing. It is full of bluster, but is devoid of facts.

 

It is the author of the article who claims that the UK still wants to be part of the single European market, whereas may could not have been clearer that she does not;

 

The author also implies that the UK sees itself as the centre of the world, a ludicrous idea which is certainly not a fact.

 

the Guardian has certainly printed articles by eminent figures, but the author of this article hardly deserves to be categorised as one of them. As I said earlier, it is lazy, clickbait journalism, consisting of statements which might sound plausible in a pub after a few pints, but which hardly deserves to be taken seriously.