ChatterBank1 min ago
In The Light Of Wednesdays Brexit Outcome
aren't all these people just wasting their time.
http://
http://
Answers
yes they are wasting their time. I can't help wondering, had the result been 52:48 to remain, whether there would be hoards of people marching down Whitehall demanding the electorate and/or the government have a rethink. I think not somehow. I imagine we would just have soldiered on as if nothing had happened and Mr Cameron would have been in Brussels...
10:41 Sun 26th Mar 2017
NJ> "Experts" are notoriously bad at getting things wrong but they are probably no worse than any other group
So any fool can be a judge, a barrister, a solicitor ... and aptitude combined with years of education and experience counts for nought? Or is it only when the expert opinion inconveniently disagrees with the desired outcome that their opinion is to be disregarded with a blanket "People in this country have had enough of experts"-type comment?
> I can't help wondering, had the result been 52:48 to remain, whether there would be hoards of people marching down Whitehall demanding the electorate and/or the government have a rethink. I think not somehow.
I think so somehow! Just look at the example being set in Scotland. A 52:48 vote (or closer) the other way would have resulted in demand and after demand for a re-run. In fact that was the exact outcome I would have preferred - a tight vote to Remain, leading to calls for a repeat referendum say in 2019, giving the EU 3 years to right at least some of the wrongs. As it is now, the EU may well do that anyway in order to stop more leavers, resulting in us being outside a better organisation.
Still, who cares now. We're leaving and we need to make the best of it.
So any fool can be a judge, a barrister, a solicitor ... and aptitude combined with years of education and experience counts for nought? Or is it only when the expert opinion inconveniently disagrees with the desired outcome that their opinion is to be disregarded with a blanket "People in this country have had enough of experts"-type comment?
> I can't help wondering, had the result been 52:48 to remain, whether there would be hoards of people marching down Whitehall demanding the electorate and/or the government have a rethink. I think not somehow.
I think so somehow! Just look at the example being set in Scotland. A 52:48 vote (or closer) the other way would have resulted in demand and after demand for a re-run. In fact that was the exact outcome I would have preferred - a tight vote to Remain, leading to calls for a repeat referendum say in 2019, giving the EU 3 years to right at least some of the wrongs. As it is now, the EU may well do that anyway in order to stop more leavers, resulting in us being outside a better organisation.
Still, who cares now. We're leaving and we need to make the best of it.
"Experts" are notoriously bad at getting things wrong..
I'm talking about predictions, not expertise or skills. Predictions as far as the likely effects of Brexit are concerned are simply educated guesses. Many predictions were made, by politicians and experts alike, about the immediate effects a "Leave" vote would have. (I'm referring to the immediate effects, not those that would take place once we had left). Among the more headline-grabbing of these were a stock market tumble (the FTSE 100 has risen by around 15% since last June – the pre-vote level that is, not the buying-opportunity level seen on June 24th); an immediate emergency budget being necessary (must have missed it); a significant rise in interest rates being required (they have dropped in the last 9 months). The only significant prediction that was reasonably accurate was a fall in the pound’s value but even this was not as severe as forecast. So I suppose one out of four is not too bad but overall not advice I would gamble too heavily on the strength of. Of course Mr Cameron also predicted that A50 would be triggered as soon as the decision had been declared and we all know what happened there.
As I said, educated guesses. I imagine those predictions of dire consequences once we have left that are now being bandied about will prove similarly accurate.
I'm talking about predictions, not expertise or skills. Predictions as far as the likely effects of Brexit are concerned are simply educated guesses. Many predictions were made, by politicians and experts alike, about the immediate effects a "Leave" vote would have. (I'm referring to the immediate effects, not those that would take place once we had left). Among the more headline-grabbing of these were a stock market tumble (the FTSE 100 has risen by around 15% since last June – the pre-vote level that is, not the buying-opportunity level seen on June 24th); an immediate emergency budget being necessary (must have missed it); a significant rise in interest rates being required (they have dropped in the last 9 months). The only significant prediction that was reasonably accurate was a fall in the pound’s value but even this was not as severe as forecast. So I suppose one out of four is not too bad but overall not advice I would gamble too heavily on the strength of. Of course Mr Cameron also predicted that A50 would be triggered as soon as the decision had been declared and we all know what happened there.
As I said, educated guesses. I imagine those predictions of dire consequences once we have left that are now being bandied about will prove similarly accurate.
Having learned that kvalidir is (possibly) in the entertainment industry I thought I’d do a bit of research to find out how that industry is beginning to see the signs of decimation to which she refers.
One of the first reports I read began by prattling on about the loss of EU subsidies (which neglected to mention that those subsidies are part of the 50% of our contributions that are paid back to us, provided we spend it as directed). But it went on to say
“…if the U.K. is no longer a part of the EU’s Open Border policy, it will be more difficult to access the full scope of European talent”.
Bearing in mind that the UK has (thankfully) never been party to the EU’s Open Border Policy and never showed any intention of being so, I decided the author was perhaps not too well qualified to comment on matters relating to the EU and abandoned the rest of the article. However, it did demonstrate how people in that industry may be easily taken in by what they read.
One of the first reports I read began by prattling on about the loss of EU subsidies (which neglected to mention that those subsidies are part of the 50% of our contributions that are paid back to us, provided we spend it as directed). But it went on to say
“…if the U.K. is no longer a part of the EU’s Open Border policy, it will be more difficult to access the full scope of European talent”.
Bearing in mind that the UK has (thankfully) never been party to the EU’s Open Border Policy and never showed any intention of being so, I decided the author was perhaps not too well qualified to comment on matters relating to the EU and abandoned the rest of the article. However, it did demonstrate how people in that industry may be easily taken in by what they read.
The thing about a lot of the predictions though is that many or most of them assumed that Cameron would stay on as PM and trigger Article 50 on Friday, as he said he would do. In the event, he resigned the next day and it's taken nine months to start the process. Both of these killed any predictions stone dead because they had the wrong starting points -- garbage in, garbage out if you like.
It seems as if Cameron couldn't (legally) have triggered Article 50 anyway, not without an Act of Parliament -- that we've now got -- but certainly the last nine months could have gone a lot worse had we rushed in to the process without the necessary resources to negotiate our exit from the EU.
In the long run it's still not clear what Brexit will mean for the UK, and the various predictions of economic decline may yet turn out to be somewhat accurate. But even if not, they have some value -- if we want to get Brexit right, it's helpful to know what it means to get it wrong. It's surprising, and a little sad too, to see how unconcerned some people are about it all. I'm not asking for pessimism but if, say, a lot of our "best and brightest" threaten to leave following Brexit, then that's not exactly a good thing for the UK. If we're seen as being insular and wary of immigrants, even if they bring benefits, and the world's best and brightest go elsewhere, then we lose out too. Neither of these things has to happen, but both of them are worth trying to avoid.
It seems as if Cameron couldn't (legally) have triggered Article 50 anyway, not without an Act of Parliament -- that we've now got -- but certainly the last nine months could have gone a lot worse had we rushed in to the process without the necessary resources to negotiate our exit from the EU.
In the long run it's still not clear what Brexit will mean for the UK, and the various predictions of economic decline may yet turn out to be somewhat accurate. But even if not, they have some value -- if we want to get Brexit right, it's helpful to know what it means to get it wrong. It's surprising, and a little sad too, to see how unconcerned some people are about it all. I'm not asking for pessimism but if, say, a lot of our "best and brightest" threaten to leave following Brexit, then that's not exactly a good thing for the UK. If we're seen as being insular and wary of immigrants, even if they bring benefits, and the world's best and brightest go elsewhere, then we lose out too. Neither of these things has to happen, but both of them are worth trying to avoid.
> I'm talking about predictions
Many political decisions are based on predictions - for example, the Budget. As are many business decisions.
Judges, less so. If your career has been based on what's happened, rather than what's going to happen, it may prejudice you against the expertise of people who do have to make predictions. But that does not mean they are not experts, just that they have it tougher than you in that department.
Given that Article 50 has not even been triggered yet, and the exchange rate has collapsed even so, we'll see how things pan out. But we'll never really know whether we would have been better off in, since to know that would be to believe a different set of predictions.
Many political decisions are based on predictions - for example, the Budget. As are many business decisions.
Judges, less so. If your career has been based on what's happened, rather than what's going to happen, it may prejudice you against the expertise of people who do have to make predictions. But that does not mean they are not experts, just that they have it tougher than you in that department.
Given that Article 50 has not even been triggered yet, and the exchange rate has collapsed even so, we'll see how things pan out. But we'll never really know whether we would have been better off in, since to know that would be to believe a different set of predictions.
//The thing about a lot of the predictions though is that many or most of them assumed that Cameron would stay on as PM and trigger Article 50 on Friday, as he said he would do. In the event, he resigned the next day and it's taken nine months to start the process. Both of these killed any predictions stone dead//
Thus seems a tendentious argument, Jim. However, if you're right then the stone dead" predictions will rise from the grave in two days time, will they not? I'm showing a good (if unexpected) profit at the moment; should I sell now?
"Insular". This is pejorative rhetoric, as you well know. Britain has a great mercantile history which will continue. Our prosperity is hindered, not helped by the customs union. I remember reading in the Spectator some while ago the imposition imposed on goods imported fro outside the U. These amounted in some cases (mainly food I think) to 100%. What we may lose in terms of trade within the EU may be more than compensated for by dealing at world ratrher than EU prices. Just a prediction of course, but not mine. The point was made by Professor Minford and other economists who argued for Brexit.
Thus seems a tendentious argument, Jim. However, if you're right then the stone dead" predictions will rise from the grave in two days time, will they not? I'm showing a good (if unexpected) profit at the moment; should I sell now?
"Insular". This is pejorative rhetoric, as you well know. Britain has a great mercantile history which will continue. Our prosperity is hindered, not helped by the customs union. I remember reading in the Spectator some while ago the imposition imposed on goods imported fro outside the U. These amounted in some cases (mainly food I think) to 100%. What we may lose in terms of trade within the EU may be more than compensated for by dealing at world ratrher than EU prices. Just a prediction of course, but not mine. The point was made by Professor Minford and other economists who argued for Brexit.
v-e: To be clear, I said "seen to be insular" -- perception is sometimes as important as truth. At the moment, we have seen a drop for example in applications at University from students coming from abroad, even though nothing has actually changed in practice. What's driving this, then, if not a perception that the UK is no longer so welcoming to outsiders? It will be important to show to others that that perception is wrong.
As to the predictions coming back to life in two days -- I doubt it. Things have changed in nine months, and the UK is at least in theory better-prepared to start the process -- as is the EU, for that matter. On the other hand, the other assumptions that went into the prediction may yet still have some sense to them. I'm no economist, so I can't evaluate the soundness of the models used, but there was certainly more to them than "Brexit starts on June 24th". It depends on what Brexit means to Theresa May, David Davis et al, and it depends on how the EU will respond to that, but however you look at it there's still a great deal of uncertainty ahead.
For what it's worth, though, I was never particularly interested in staying in the EU for economic reasons, and I was never especially convinced by the doomsday scenarios that some were predicting. I'm sure that Brexit *can* go wrong economically, but it seemed to me that it was in people's interests to make sure that it *didn't*. What has troubled me, though, is how people have appeared to use the predictions, and their not materialising, to essentially dismiss the value of expert opinion and advice, rather than trying to understand why the predictions haven't come true in practice. And that wasn't because they were made-up bull in every sense, but because they assumed that Cameron meant what he said before the referendum.
As to the predictions coming back to life in two days -- I doubt it. Things have changed in nine months, and the UK is at least in theory better-prepared to start the process -- as is the EU, for that matter. On the other hand, the other assumptions that went into the prediction may yet still have some sense to them. I'm no economist, so I can't evaluate the soundness of the models used, but there was certainly more to them than "Brexit starts on June 24th". It depends on what Brexit means to Theresa May, David Davis et al, and it depends on how the EU will respond to that, but however you look at it there's still a great deal of uncertainty ahead.
For what it's worth, though, I was never particularly interested in staying in the EU for economic reasons, and I was never especially convinced by the doomsday scenarios that some were predicting. I'm sure that Brexit *can* go wrong economically, but it seemed to me that it was in people's interests to make sure that it *didn't*. What has troubled me, though, is how people have appeared to use the predictions, and their not materialising, to essentially dismiss the value of expert opinion and advice, rather than trying to understand why the predictions haven't come true in practice. And that wasn't because they were made-up bull in every sense, but because they assumed that Cameron meant what he said before the referendum.
Apologies for my sloppiness in ascribing the insularity "perception" to you personally, Jim.
I voted Leave to free ourselves from our thralldom to Juncker's unelected Commission, but in the expectation that I would take a short-term financial hit. I believe that Brexit is in the best interests of my young compatriots - brightest, best, thickest, worst. I hope I live long enough to see a prosperous post-Brexit Britain.
I voted Leave to free ourselves from our thralldom to Juncker's unelected Commission, but in the expectation that I would take a short-term financial hit. I believe that Brexit is in the best interests of my young compatriots - brightest, best, thickest, worst. I hope I live long enough to see a prosperous post-Brexit Britain.
“What has troubled me, though, is how people have appeared to use the predictions, and their not materialising, to essentially dismiss the value of expert opinion…”
You note that I often (when I remember) place “expert” in inverted commas when discussing pre-referendum predictions, Jim. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that much of the so-called expert opinion that was pummelled into the electorate last year was nothing of the sort. It was not objective opinion; it was simply contrived propaganda designed to instil fear into voters. The CBI in particular is one panel of experts which has spectacular form when it comes to their prophesies falling short and whether by accident or design nobody knows. You suggest that the delay in triggering A50 is the reason why some of those predictions failed to materialise. You may be right to a point but the country (including many of the politicians and experts) fully expected A50 to be triggered fairly immediately for some time after the vote and none of the catastrophic and immediate effects ensued. But here we are about to sign the letter and still there’s been no emergency budget, no hike in interest rates, no stock market crash.
“Experts” who have their opinions dismissed have only themselves to blame if they participate in this sort of deceit.
You note that I often (when I remember) place “expert” in inverted commas when discussing pre-referendum predictions, Jim. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that much of the so-called expert opinion that was pummelled into the electorate last year was nothing of the sort. It was not objective opinion; it was simply contrived propaganda designed to instil fear into voters. The CBI in particular is one panel of experts which has spectacular form when it comes to their prophesies falling short and whether by accident or design nobody knows. You suggest that the delay in triggering A50 is the reason why some of those predictions failed to materialise. You may be right to a point but the country (including many of the politicians and experts) fully expected A50 to be triggered fairly immediately for some time after the vote and none of the catastrophic and immediate effects ensued. But here we are about to sign the letter and still there’s been no emergency budget, no hike in interest rates, no stock market crash.
“Experts” who have their opinions dismissed have only themselves to blame if they participate in this sort of deceit.
I don't want to labour the point too much --a s I've said, I'm no economist -- but again let me stress that there's a problem in evaluating predictions solely on whether or not they turn out to be true. I know that sounds stupid but what I mean is that the method matters as well, and it's generally acknowledged that the methods behind some of those predictions, particularly the Treasury forecasts, were state-of-the-art.
So, as I say, that it hasn't matched reality is partly because in the event Brexit didn't start when the predictions assumed it would, and partly because the world is unpredictable anyway. Yes, there's the politics of making predictions too, and I wish that the negative predictions hadn't been so heavily pushed as they were. Even though they were methodically sound, probably, they still came with a great deal of uncertainty -- too much, in my opinion, to base anyone's vote on one way or the other. And, as we've seen on this threat for example, more than a few people were anyway prepared to "take the hit", so that even if the predictions come true I don't think it will change many people's minds.
The truth was, and still is, that no-one knows what Brexit will mean for the UK or for anyone else. That remains true even now. I don't think that economic forecasts have no value but they have to be taken in context and with the understanding that any given number from a forecast is attached with a (large) degree of uncertainty. That actually means that forecasts can be right even if they're apparently wrong.
Long story short, people need to stop focusing on the central values and start accounting for the large variations around those in future. I really hope that economic (and scientific) predictions are given better presentation and better respect in future. We lose out if the public has less trust in them. That's probably one of the biggest worries I have based on the last few years, or so, that Michael Gove's "we've had enough of experts" is after all correct.
So, as I say, that it hasn't matched reality is partly because in the event Brexit didn't start when the predictions assumed it would, and partly because the world is unpredictable anyway. Yes, there's the politics of making predictions too, and I wish that the negative predictions hadn't been so heavily pushed as they were. Even though they were methodically sound, probably, they still came with a great deal of uncertainty -- too much, in my opinion, to base anyone's vote on one way or the other. And, as we've seen on this threat for example, more than a few people were anyway prepared to "take the hit", so that even if the predictions come true I don't think it will change many people's minds.
The truth was, and still is, that no-one knows what Brexit will mean for the UK or for anyone else. That remains true even now. I don't think that economic forecasts have no value but they have to be taken in context and with the understanding that any given number from a forecast is attached with a (large) degree of uncertainty. That actually means that forecasts can be right even if they're apparently wrong.
Long story short, people need to stop focusing on the central values and start accounting for the large variations around those in future. I really hope that economic (and scientific) predictions are given better presentation and better respect in future. We lose out if the public has less trust in them. That's probably one of the biggest worries I have based on the last few years, or so, that Michael Gove's "we've had enough of experts" is after all correct.
Just watching the debate at the moment and this chestnut has come up again:
> No deal is better than a bad deal
Just how thick do they think we are?
Why on earth would something worse than "no deal" even be put on the table for consideration? It would not. Anything worse than "no deal" is therefore, by definition, not a "deal". So, by definition, "no deal" is the worst possible deal.
> No deal is better than a bad deal
Just how thick do they think we are?
Why on earth would something worse than "no deal" even be put on the table for consideration? It would not. Anything worse than "no deal" is therefore, by definition, not a "deal". So, by definition, "no deal" is the worst possible deal.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music12 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.