Brexit discussion thread III

Leroy42 · 22-06-2018 12:24PM

trellheim wrote: »

( as expected. Cant see how the UK can do this without ECJ overwatch)

From NI Questions just before PMQs in the commons https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-20/debates/B46C0FB7-2347-43F4-A9BF-514B8E9CFCC9/SecuritySituation

This is why I really don't think they have a plan.

Basically she said that they need to puts things in place, which was the answer to the question of 'what things are you going to put in place'.

Now on what basis could withholding this sort of information be advisable. At the very least it is going to have criminals thinking that things could be about to get much easier.

EdgeCase · 22-06-2018 12:58PM

I think this is part of the problem though. Everyone assumed they must be up to something and they have a cunning plan of some sort that's yet to be announced. The reality is I think they've bought their own hype and aren't really able to step back from the precipice anymore.

The markets haven't turned on them because there's still some kind of hope that there's some method to this madness or that they'll suddenly reverse Brexit.

The UK has an amazing ability to erase its recent history. It has had a good run in terms of economic growth and political stability, really going back to the end of the Thatcher era.

Before that, the UK saw regular violent protests - Miners Strikes, Poll tax riots etc etc.. Many of those would put some of the recent French stuff into perspective as minor.

If you go back to the 1970s the country was driven into the ground financially and was the first developed economy to ever request an IMF bailout.

It also spent decades with huge inflation rates and currency issues.

And they also completely disown the Northern Ireland conflict, which bubbled on as one of the most violent conflicts in post war Europe. Somehow that's just pushed aside as if it's something that happened in the Republic of Ireland. It didn't. It happened in the UK and under UK rule.

They're imagining some golden age that never really existed. Or, maybe it did, but it was in about 1992-2008 when you'd that "cool Britannia" era and also for a brief period in the late 50s and into the 1960s.

I see only two possible outcomes.

1. They somehow dial back Brexit and either cancel it or end up in some kind of EEA deal. If that happens, we've business as usual and it will just be "oh do you remember Brexit?" in a few years time.

2. This bluster and nonsense continues and the time runs out and they exit in a chaotic mess. That will lead to something more like the 1970s all over again with a rather painful economic adjustment that could last 10+ years and probably political chaos and riots and all fo those things as the economy contracts and convulses and they try to hold the Government to its promises and the populist tabloids just switch from goading the Government to leave to attacking them for austerity.

Right now, I'm still thinking it's going to blindly wander into option 2 and that's something we need to be as fully prepared for as we can be.

trellheim · 22-06-2018 01:08PM

If the Airbus warning doesn't scare them - nothing will - but I just cant see a deal that keeps them in the EU that will be voted through in the Commons.

EdgeCase · 22-06-2018 01:22PM

I think fundamentally they don't understand how good they have it at the moment. The EU is taken utterly for granted. Like many boring things ... plumbing, wiring, house foundations, etc etc.

What worries me is that they don't seem to comprehend that that one of the fundamental pillars of the EU is creating a seamless, open, totally fair, transparent, huge single market where internal barriers to trade are completely removed.

That ideal is at the core of everything the EU does. It's not a self-centred bilateral agreement between countries. They pooled sovereignty. They threw their lot in together across a whole load of areas. I quite honestly think that the idea that you can strip it down to a purely economic arrangement is impossible and actually quite an oversimplification of what the relationships are.

From my point of view, the UK Tory mode of thinking has always been that the EU is only about the money and the market and nothing else. They approached it more like a bilateral trade deal than a deeper relationship as many of the other core members have.

I think Ireland's relationship with Europe isn't as complicated as we didn't have a big imperial ego and we have largely embraced multilateralism and have been extremely good at working our way through networking the hell out of the EU in a way that I think is quite similar to many of the smaller member states.

The UK simply isn't going to get that kind of solidarity and connectivity from any bilateral trade deal. It will always be about two countries with vested interests opening trade for self-interested reasons. The EU has been a lot more than that.

At this stage, I am just sick of them. They're going around and around and around in circles. Their politics is utterly toxic, nasty and negative all the time and has very strong similarities to Trump, the League in Italy and Marine Le Pen in France.

I don't think the EU's perfect. It's very much a work in progress and you can influence how it develops but I would rather have that vision of trying to build something that's about building something positive that's bigger and better than the sum of its parts.
How the hell the EU is being painted as some kind of evil monster is beyond me.

It's messy, it's sometimes dysfunctional and it doesn't always work as planned but, it's genuinely been far more positive than negative over its lifetime.

I wish the UK luck, but I don't think they'll ever have the kind of relationship that they've enjoyed from 1973 until now with any bilateral trade partner.

It was a more like a marriage than a trade agreement, but you can get divorced anytime. It's not Ireland in the 1960s.

It's just a pity that Northern Ireland's left caught in the middle of it. Although, that's also something for the people of Northern Ireland to decide at a time of their choosing. Nobody else can decide their future for them. That's fundamentally enshrined in the GFA and I assume will be respected, including by the UK.

LeinsterDub · 22-06-2018 02:10PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm unhappy that such a massive change can be carried through with a simple 50+1 majority. These things (and I include Irish unity) should require some greater margin.

Where do you draw the line on this thinking ? Should the Repealing the 8th required a super majority , equal marriage, approving the GFA ?

Leroy42 · 22-06-2018 02:13PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I live in NI and voted remain.
The EU is far from perfect and it does need its wings clipped a bit. However, I'm not sure that brexit is the wisest decision made.

I'm unhappy that such a massive change can be carried through with a simple 50+1 majority. These things (and I include Irish unity) should require some greater margin.

The Tories are a complete mess. I would not be against leaving if there was some order to it, but this is beyond ridiculous. Leaving is one thing. Leaving in these conditions is something else though.

Whether Airbus do leave or not, I don't know. If they do it will be gradual. I suspect that there will be a slight reduction in numbers and then it will taper off. The problem Airbus have is that the skill base location is fixed and it will take a long time to develop a new site with the same capability. By the time they do, I expect things to have stabilised politically and economically (to some extent).

The problem with that sort of thinking is the reverse side of it. If Airbus start to move, though it may be gradual, the UK will find it very hard to get them back. The skills will disappear and no other companies will then feel the skills are there to locate to the UK (it is part of the argument that some are saying Airbus can't move to China).

And that could be the real legacy of Brexit. This notion, sold erroneously by the Remain side, that it will come crashing down on Day 1 was never realistic. It was always going to be a slow drip, drip. Companies won't leave enmass, they just won't re-invest. When looking to cut jobs the UK may be 1st on the list rather than last. When setting up HQ, UK is far less attractive than before.

The other thing I would say is why are you, and plenty of people like, not out protesting about this. AS you say, even Farage is out stating this, Brexit might have been a good idea but not the way the Tories are messing it up. Yet the 48% are just so passive. Its like the UK is simply accepting their faith. Why are there not marches in NI demanding that the DUP listen to what the majority in NI actually voted for. That the DUP should, at the very least, demanding the softest of soft Brexits.

FrancieBrady · 22-06-2018 02:28PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Repealing the 8th only directly affects a subset of females - similar with marriage. So a straightforward 50+1 there for me.
GFA affect everyone so I would say margin for it.

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

This turned brexit into a protest vote. Not by all, but maybe enough to swing it to remain.

Had it gone the other way, Leave voters would have been complaining about 2 per cent keeping then in the carnage of the EU.

You have to accept a majority decision, you can't start qualifying it because you happen to think this is carnage.
Leave seem to think things are grand.

Panrich · 22-06-2018 02:35PM

If this is not a watershed moment, then it's curtains for anything other than a hard Brexit. I would expect other companies (those that not afraid or less vulnerable to a public backlash), to follow the lead set by Airbus and come out in strong terms over the next few weeks. I can guarantee that these CEOs talk among themselves and the Airbus statement is surely going to be followed by others to see if they can talk the Tories away from the edge of the cliff.

The way that the Tories behaved on the meaningful vote the other day felt like it brought no deal closer as the manouevres to ensure Davis and May could not be challenged on their strategy screams hardball.

Business leaders will have seen that, and are probably extremely alarmed that the prospects of a deal that they can work with, seems to be receding. They have been very patient with the lack of clarity up to now, but the dam might be about to break on that front now.

Leroy42 · 22-06-2018 02:36PM

Its not about protesting the result of the vote, its about protesting that the Brexit that was campaigned for is not being delivered.

Sure 52% voted for Brexit, but did they vote for this mess of a Brexit. They were promised £350per week for the NHS, that is now off the table.

NI certainly didn't vote for this, and whilst they as part of the Uk need to accept the majority, they should also be looking to reduce the impact. It seems on the whole people are simply prepared to wait and see, despite the fact that everything they have seen so far shows the Tories haven't a rashers

listermint · 22-06-2018 02:38PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I live in NI and voted remain.
The EU is far from perfect and it does need its wings clipped a bit. However, I'm not sure that brexit is the wisest decision made.

I'm unhappy that such a massive change can be carried through with a simple 50+1 majority. These things (and I include Irish unity) should require some greater margin.

The Tories are a complete mess. I would not be against leaving if there was some order to it, but this is beyond ridiculous. Leaving is one thing. Leaving in these conditions is something else though.

Whether Airbus do leave or not, I don't know. If they do it will be gradual. I suspect that there will be a slight reduction in numbers and then it will taper off. The problem Airbus have is that the skill base location is fixed and it will take a long time to develop a new site with the same capability. By the time they do, I expect things to have stabilised politically and economically (to some extent).

Voted remain, but would not be against leaving if there was order to it ?

Why!

There to date has been no demonstrable benefit, to anyone, except for private vulture funds who will pick over the carcasses.

I really dont even understand that sentiment at all......

Leroy42 · 22-06-2018 02:39PM

There an interview with the ex head of the banking Federation of London or some such group. Anyway, he said that few companies will announce anything, for fear of being labeling anti-UK or whatever. But many banks have already started to move quietly by setting up new operations (in Dublin etc) and starting the process. So they are preparing.

Whether it is a fast move or a drip drip move they are ready.

FrancieBrady · 22-06-2018 02:47PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Farage stated

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Farage is going to be the Oracle on administering a democracy?

ambro25 · 22-06-2018 02:52PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

(...) The other thing I would say is why are you, and plenty of people like, not out protesting about this. AS you say, even Farage is out stating this, Brexit might have been a good idea but not the way the Tories are messing it up. Yet the 48% are just so passive. Its like the UK is simply accepting their faith. Why are there not marches in NI demanding that the DUP listen to what the majority in NI actually voted for. That the DUP should, at the very least, demanding the softest of soft Brexits.

It’s a question with merit, but ultimately pointless: this is just not the U.K. mindset, whether generally as a point of social observation, or topically in good part due to a general lack of factual knowledge about “what the EU has ever done for Joe Average over the past 45 years”.

As typified by the current majority sentiment in the U.K., shared between voters of both camps as assessed by polls quoted not so long ago, that the average Brit wants the process to just “get on”.

After witnessing the sentiment on the street (at the time) about the Article 50 letter, the Gina Miller legal challenge and the Supreme Court decision, I kind of always knew that the Brits were simply too ignorant (of the *real* significances of these events), too apathetic, and likely both at once, for a popular groundswell to develop against Brexit, early enough to matter politically.

That there still aren’t millions-heavy matches every single week, after the (by now-) years-worth of reporting about the utter incompetence of May’s government, is vindication aplenty - for me at least.

For us, this aspect of the whole issue went a long way towards deciding to brexode sooner rather than later.

On that topic, I wouldn’t trust the ‘simple and cheap’ residency solution that they just mooted yesterday, so far as I could throw it. And even less, that they’d honour its results in case of a no-deal Brexit: 3m people is too juicy a negotiation chip to throw away just like that, before or after March 2019.

seamus · 22-06-2018 02:56PM

One of the things from the Airbus statement, that I hadn't considered:

the current planned transition (which ends in December 2020) is too short for the EU and UK Governments to agree the outstanding issues, and too short for Airbus to implement the required changes with its extensive supply chain. In this scenario, Airbus would carefully monitor any new investments in the UK and refrain from extending the UK suppliers/partners base.

Service businesses can tear down a shop and set up in another location in a matter of weeks, days even.
Manufacturing can't. It can take years for the processes and supply chains to become fully established. Plants can have lead-in times of years where they're fully staffed and operational, but not producing anything yet.

I imagine Airbus are not alone here; there's a good chance that once Brexit becomes reality - regardless of whether it's no-deal or transitionary - that these businesses will have to make a call and just start the relocation process because they can't afford to wait around to see if the UK government manages to cobble together any good deals.

ambro25 · 22-06-2018 03:05PM

seamus wrote: »

One of the things from the Airbus statement, that I hadn't considered:

the current planned transition (which ends in December 2020) is too short for the EU and UK Governments to agree the outstanding issues, and too short for Airbus to implement the required changes with its extensive supply chain. In this scenario, Airbus would carefully monitor any new investments in the UK and refrain from extending the UK suppliers/partners base.

Service businesses can tear down a shop and set up in another location in a matter of weeks, days even.
Manufacturing can't. It can take years for the processes and supply chains to become fully established. Plants can have lead-in times of years where they're fully staffed and operational, but not producing anything yet.

I imagine Airbus are not alone here; there's a good chance that once Brexit becomes reality - regardless of whether it's no-deal or transitionary - that these businesses will have to make a call and just start the relocation process because they can't afford to wait around to see if the UK government manages to cobble together any good deals.

Not all can, and certainly not regulated ones (think financial and legal in need of local regulatory licensing/approval). Usually these types of service providers are not the least profitable either.

As for Airbus, for all it’s recent noises, I’m quietly confident that it has long started scoping out and vetting EU27 suppliers as ready-replacements for U.K. suppliers, the same as many other manufacturers-assemblers in other fields, for minimal impact to the baseline come 2019-2020. But as already posted in here (and mentioned by ever more people in talks & interviews) it’s not PR-friendly to say it out loud. So they don’t.

A remain-minded poster with whom I have been exchanging about Brexit since before the referendum on another, UK-based forum, works in logistics planning services. Since 2016, he’s been mentioning in his posts, anecdotally but regularly over the period, being off his feet with work on his clients’ contingency planning. And mentioned some clients starting to act out contingency plans since January ‘18. They’re big, but not Airbus/Nissan household-name big.

LeinsterDub · 22-06-2018 03:39PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

It's democracy of course it's correct. I wouldn't be apposed to a new poll in light of all the facts that have emerged since triggering A50. Perhaps people should learn to vote on the issue at hand and not use it as a proxy vote to give the government the 2 fingers

View · 22-06-2018 03:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Repealing the 8th only directly affects a subset of females - similar with marriage. So a straightforward 50+1 there for me.
GFA affect everyone so I would say margin for it.

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

This turned brexit into a protest vote. Not by all, but maybe enough to swing it to remain.

Had it gone the other way, Leave voters would have been complaining about 2 per cent keeping then in the carnage of the EU.

You have to accept a majority decision, you can't start qualifying it because you happen to think this is carnage.
Leave seem to think things are grand.

The referendum was an advisory one and the result was therefore advice, not a binding decision. And, the whole point of advice is that it one of a range of factors to be considered by the ultimate decision maker.

A country can never hold advisory referenda if the results must be treated as binding.

The Leave side certainly never accepted the results of the 75 advisory referendum as being binding at the time or since.

KingNerolives · 22-06-2018 03:58PM

Zero progress on the agricultural industry post brexit. It's not just business owners that need to plan, it's farmers too!

An Ciarraioch · 22-06-2018 04:00PM

39% of Survation respondents have a "limited understanding" of the Irish border issue, 19% have heard nothing about it!

http://survation.com/brexit-vote-two-years-on-survation-for-good-morning-britain/

Nody · 22-06-2018 04:37PM

seamus wrote: »

One of the things from the Airbus statement, that I hadn't considered:
Service businesses can tear down a shop and set up in another location in a matter of weeks, days even.
Manufacturing can't. It can take years for the processes and supply chains to become fully established. Plants can have lead-in times of years where they're fully staffed and operational, but not producing anything yet.

I imagine Airbus are not alone here; there's a good chance that once Brexit becomes reality - regardless of whether it's no-deal or transitionary - that these businesses will have to make a call and just start the relocation process because they can't afford to wait around to see if the UK government manages to cobble together any good deals.

Sorry but this is not how things work; I work in a world wide manufacturing company where JIT is normal. We would normally have about 4h of supply / storage capacity in our 24/7 factories and we've dealt with multiple outages/peaks for various reasons. Here is the way things are likely to play out.

First of all JIT will still be in place but it will be JIT with middle storage. Hence normally you'd go supplier - factory in your tight JIT timelines. Now instead it goes supplier - storage unit - factory. Same thing for outputs; due to the waiting times you'll go factory - storage unit - customer. This allows you to still run your normal processes more or less but that storage unit is not for free. Not only do you need to ship stuff there, store it etc. but due to the variability you need X days of supply + margin in space. If the queues start to build up on shipping out (more likely side) that space will grow and grow etc. and that is where the cost builds up rapidly. Temporary storage is not cheap and you're unlikely to commit to permanent storage for 15+ years due to not being competitive in the first place (there's a reason we all went JIT after all). You'd also look for a local supplier for what ever you'd leave behind (if any; depends on the company and factory after all) but the biggest pain will be the outbound leg for sure.

Hence that's your back up plan now in place and you can run that for a year+ depending on the business margins while working out how and where to relocate the business. The relocation process will also most likely be on a line by line basis but you can move a full line and have it up and running for most things inc. cars in a year with good project management as long as the building is there. The problem for UK is once those relocation plans start they are not stopping because they will have committed by then (and most likely received grants for moving their stuff to the region) and those commitments will be done over a year in advance of the actual announcements of the move.

FrancieBrady · 22-06-2018 04:37PM

View wrote: »

The referendum was an advisory one and the result was therefore advice, not a binding decision. And, the whole point of advice is that it one of a range of factors to be considered by the ultimate decision maker.

A country can never hold advisory referenda if the results must be treated as binding.

The Leave side certainly never accepted the results of the 75 advisory referendum as being binding at the time or since.

Democratically, there is no onus to 'accept' the result of a referendum other than abiding by the result.
There is nothing hindering lobbying and campaigning to change.
As we see the Scots are free to seek a fresh Indy referendum while remaining in the UK.

BonnieSituation · 22-06-2018 04:44PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Repealing the 8th only directly affects a subset of females - similar with marriage. So a straightforward 50+1 there for me.
GFA affect everyone so I would say margin for it.

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

This turned brexit into a protest vote. Not by all, but maybe enough to swing it to remain.

By the same token as the 8th only affected women physiologically then they should have been the ones to vote for it.

Nonsense.

Re unity the GFA states that it's 50%+1 and the we voted for it (amendment to Arts 2 and 3) on that basis.

To change the agreement now would require another referendum. Imagine that hassle and row.

By the time it comes to the point of a border poll happening I would be confident that we'll bring that extra 10% along.

Things like the Leave vote are okay to have as qualifying majority voting "if" you state that at the beginning. You can't just wish it was after the fact.

Similar if Scotland had gone the other way in 2014. You can't complain that the rules were too loose.

Leroy42 · 22-06-2018 04:45PM

Shouldn't Ireland be going all out to get the manufacturing off the UK? Close enough to the UK market and the same laws/language and many of the top workers will be happy to relocate to a close neighbour.

Or is that simply not viable for Ireland Inc?

View · 22-06-2018 04:46PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

The referendum was an advisory one and the result was therefore advice, not a binding decision. And, the whole point of advice is that it one of a range of factors to be considered by the ultimate decision maker.

A country can never hold advisory referenda if the results must be treated as binding.

The Leave side certainly never accepted the results of the 75 advisory referendum as being binding at the time or since.

Democratically, there is no onus to 'accept' the result of a referendum other than abiding by the result.
There is nothing hindering lobbying and campaigning to change.
As we see the Scots are free to seek a fresh Indy referendum while remaining in the UK.

And again, an advisory referendum results in advice which the ultimate decision maker is free to consider in conjunction with every other piece of advice they receive. The ultimate decision maker gets to decide which piece (or pieces) it chooses to follow.

Accepting the result of an advisory referendum is not the same as deciding to act on the advice from that referendum.

That should be especially true in the case of the Brexit one in which there are several serious allegations concerning breaches of the electoral laws.

Rhineshark · 22-06-2018 05:26PM

After the fact is too late to question what majority should be required, but I agree that 50+1 is asking for trouble when it is something that will fundamentally change the entire governing system of a country, upend it's economy or otherwise make a truly drastic change.

Brexit and GFA should, in my opinion, be higher majorities. There is too much risk of a close margin result and a deeply divided electorate. Britain appears paralysed, although I'm not convinced that that is alone down to the close result, but the divisions and resentment that have sprung up are going to take a long time to fade. Brexit should never have been a referendum, that was almost criminally stupid.

Too late now for Brexit and if the rules are enshrined as they are for GFA than so be it (50+1 makes a bit more sense there, although I'd be nervous of a very close result).

It is different for smaller questions, including SSM and abortion. Neither a Yes nor a No was going to rip the country apart, as glad as I am that both won.

Anthracite · 22-06-2018 05:30PM

BMW now warning about their future in the UK, as predicted upthread. I wonder how many more will follow?

Enzokk · 22-06-2018 05:32PM

Anthracite wrote: »

BMW now warning about their future in the UK, as predicted upthread. I wonder how many more will follow?

They must also be EU mouthpieces like Airbus is, right?

sink · 22-06-2018 06:11PM

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but this is not how things work; I work in a world wide manufacturing company where JIT is normal. We would normally have about 4h of supply / storage capacity in our 24/7 factories and we've dealt with multiple outages/peaks for various reasons. Here is the way things are likely to play out.

First of all JIT will still be in place but it will be JIT with middle storage. Hence normally you'd go supplier - factory in your tight JIT timelines. Now instead it goes supplier - storage unit - factory. Same thing for outputs; due to the waiting times you'll go factory - storage unit - customer. This allows you to still run your normal processes more or less but that storage unit is not for free. Not only do you need to ship stuff there, store it etc. but due to the variability you need X days of supply + margin in space. If the queues start to build up on shipping out (more likely side) that space will grow and grow etc. and that is where the cost builds up rapidly. Temporary storage is not cheap and you're unlikely to commit to permanent storage for 15+ years due to not being competitive in the first place (there's a reason we all went JIT after all). You'd also look for a local supplier for what ever you'd leave behind (if any; depends on the company and factory after all) but the biggest pain will be the outbound leg for sure.

Hence that's your back up plan now in place and you can run that for a year+ depending on the business margins while working out how and where to relocate the business. The relocation process will also most likely be on a line by line basis but you can move a full line and have it up and running for most things inc. cars in a year with good project management as long as the building is there. The problem for UK is once those relocation plans start they are not stopping because they will have committed by then (and most likely received grants for moving their stuff to the region) and those commitments will be done over a year in advance of the actual announcements of the move.

Not only that but they also have to consider EASA certification. I'm not sure how it will work but I know that UK issued certificates will no longer be recognised by EASA without an agreement. Will UK suppliers have to send their produce to the EU for certification and then back to Airbus assembly in the UK and then on to the EU for final assembly? It's a mess.

LeinsterDub · 22-06-2018 06:12PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Shouldn't Ireland be going all out to get the manufacturing off the UK? Close enough to the UK market and the same laws/language and many of the top workers will be happy to relocate to a close neighbour.

Or is that simply not viable for Ireland Inc?

No skills in manufacturing per say. We are too far away from the continent for just in time deliveries and our sea crossings can be very weather affected and finally we are at 6% unemployment . 5% is considered full employment

EdgeCase · 22-06-2018 06:13PM

Enzokk wrote: »

They must also be EU mouthpieces like Airbus is, right?

Sadly, the current trend is that if someone doesn't like the facts or they don't suit a particular internal mental model of how the world works, you claim they're a conspiracy or falsehood.

It's a growing problem not only across politics, but it's the same weird mentality that is seeing things like a rise of belief that the earth's flat, antivaxers, people who think climate change is a con job, that NASA is hiding aliens, etc etc etc..

Conspiracy theories bred by the ability to concentrate those who believe them into online communities that turn into filter bubbles and echo chambers and before long you've got people who've got an entirely 'alternative' set of facts (to reference Trump's spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway).

Basically, if the facts don't suit your dogma - scream HERACY!!!!

We're starting to slip back to problems that we thought we had left far behind us in an era of scientific reasoning, knowledge, and ability to probe facts. It's now an era of vast amounts of information and no way of sorting or ranking it.

Brexit discussion thread III

Comments