Brexit to go?

[kristina]

but you are right in assuming that I don't know what was/is presented to the public in, as you write, "serious" news programs over Brexit, because I hardly ever listen to news programs ... Why? Because first of all I have no TV and secondly it becomes really hard to figure out, whether or not the public is being served with real news or whether the news happen to be another of these PR-exercises ...

(A) Paranoid Much?

(B) An intelligent person should be able to tell the difference, not hide from facts trembling in fear in case they are lies.

(C) Well if you don't listen to the news how the hell can you claim to know anything about anything? (Radio will do if you don't have a TV, I get most of my news from the Today program on radio 4 and only watch the TV news when my dialysis over runs and I catch it there.) All you know is what a few of your friends tell you, a skewed partial view of the world. Few facts and a lot of opinions. This explains why you are about the only person in Britain unaware of the opinionated attitude both sides of the Brexit argument tend to spout.

(D) If you are afraid of "fake news", the way it spreads is via friends and the Internet. If you don't have the "real" news to compare it with, then you will never be able to tell what is fake, and what is true. So how do you know that what your friends tell you is "true" news, or something they read on David Icke's website?

I am very impressed by your absolute certainty ! But ... how can you be so certain, that the news you rely on, are really true and are "real" news?
I am wondering, because I remember the Thatcher-years when citizens in the UK were urged to become "enterprising" and set up in business  ...  and I remember many innocent people who set-up in business (being urged by the Thatcher-business-enterprising-fever) during these Thatcher-years, putting their houses as a guarantee to repay their huge business-loans (the bigger the better and the banks were ever so willing to "help" with huge loans) and in the end all these enterprising innocent people were all caught-up, because there were no news to warn them i.e. no television-news and no newspaper-news warned them of the oncoming huge "bust" with unemployment etc. and all of a sudden many people were left overnight in bankruptcy and were even left homeless, after they had lost everything, including their family-homes to the banks... Remember the huge suicide-numbers in the UK during the late 1980's?
I mention the above to explain why many people (including myself) have become extremely sceptical of, as you say, "real news" ...

[MooseMom]

Paul, in case I didn't make myself clear, I meant to explain that the fear of Eastern Europeans coming to the UK and taking away everyone's jobs and using the health system and taking advantage of benefits has been present for decades.  This is nothing new.  But the refugee problem was a spark that finally brought these fears to the fore, just in time for Cameron's Brexit ploy.

I have British friends who have a home in the south of Spain, and like you've explained, they are able to take advantage of the health system down there without charge.  They are now concerned about what Brexit will mean for them, so I do understand your point.

I never had UK citizenship, so when we went abroad, I was not covered by this EU agreement regarding health care.  I was in Normandy one year around D-Day and had a gout attack (I didn't know at the time that my kidneys were quite so bad); I had to see a doctor and then get a prescription.  I had to pay a small fee only because I was not an EU citizen.

These are the kinds of details that I personally would have liked to have seen at least spoken about before the Brexit vote. 

Almost two years after the vote, I still don't see a clear idea of what the British people want.  Soft Brexit?  Hard Brexit?  If you all are baffled about Trump and what he means to the future of a liberal democracy, we are baffled about Brexit and what it means for the future of the European alliance.

[MooseMom]

That we are talking about "real news" versus "fake news" is very troubling, as is the discussion about whether or not to believe scientists.  We are seeing a breakdown in consensus, and this will break our society.

Citizens are increasingly believing whatever they want to believe.  "Alternative facts" are dangerous.

[Paul]

I am very impressed by your absolute certainty ! But ... how can you be so certain, that the news you rely on, are really true and are "real" news?

I'm not "absolutely certain", I am "reasonably sure", there is a big difference, it meant that I am always aware I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. But either way it is better than your position, which is "blind guessing with no real information to base those guesses on". Your policy of not listening to any news, but believing what a "mate down the pub told you" is a guarantee that you are going to be wrong.

I remember the Thatcher-years when citizens in the UK were urged to become "enterprising" and set up in business......and all of a sudden many people were left overnight in bankruptcy and were even left homeless, after they had lost everything

Oh you mean people like Richard Branston, Alan Sugar, John Mills, Duncan Bannatyne, Theo Paphitis, Anita Roddick, Peter Jones, Piers Linney, James Caan, Deborah Meaden, etc., etc., etc...... I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher but even I have to admit that most people who made their money in her time are still rich. However as well as these competent businessmen who accepted her call, a lot of idiots who were not competent to run their own company tried it. Their failure was due to their stupidity or (more often) their greed, a sort of "make money quickly by cutting corners" business method, never a good idea (nor a morally correct one). These are the people who went bust.

A few years back I was talking to a guy who had set up his own business and was now selling up because if he did not he was about to go bankrupt and loose everything. He was telling me, proudly, that he had set up the business without being able to read and write.  He could sign his name, but could not read or write anything else. So he could sign contracts, but could not read what he was agreeing to by signing the contract! And he wondered why his business was going bust!

The problem with your opinion of this period is that you don't follow the news. So you only have the information that friends give you. Presumably some of these friends have friends who went bust because they were too greedy, or too stupid to run a successful business. But you don't blame you friends for things like that. So when they tell you the story it is all Thatcher's fault, she could be an evil woman at times, so it is easy and believable to blame her for things that were not her fault. Sadly without real news to guide you, you have no choice but to believe your friends.

Sure, if you follow the news, some of it will be wrong. It is up to the listener to work out which is the false stuff, which is surprisingly little (provided you are careful of your news sources), but still some. And occasionally you will make a mistake and believe something that is false, or disbelieve something that is true. But if you are reasonably intelligent you will be wrong less than five percent of the time, which means you will be right ninety five percent of the time. That is a hell of a lot better than not watching the news, and relying on a "mate down the pub" to give you the facts. Then you will be uninformed 50% of the time, misinformed 50% of the time, and correct only rarely.

And you will end up posting on boards like this that you are totally unaware of Brexiteers having a particular view when about half of them (i.e. about 25% of the population of Britain) are shouting these things from the rooftops.

[Paul]

Paul, in case I didn't make myself clear, I meant to explain that the fear of Eastern Europeans coming to the UK and taking away everyone's jobs and using the health system and taking advantage of benefits has been present for decades.  This is nothing new.  But the refugee problem was a spark that finally brought these fears to the fore, just in time for Cameron's Brexit ploy.

Yes that is correct, it was mostly people from the "new" EU countries in Eastern Europe who came over here looking for work, only a few came from Western Europe, those countries had a more stable economy, and did not need to come here for work. Plus their salaries were similar to ours, many Eastern European countries have a much lower average and minimum wage, so the same job in Britain pays a lot more.

However what I did (and still do) disagree with was your claim that it was "fear of unchecked Muslim immigration" (my emboldment). Their religion was of little importance, it was the fact that they were "foreigners" that offended most Brexiteers. And to be accurate, most were Christian not Muslim anyway.

[Paul]

Just talking to a friend on the 'phone and I mentioned this thread. They pointed out something I missed WRT business failures in the 1980s: Very few successful businessmen have not had at least one failure. Many of those failed businesses will be ones run by quitters who gave up after that first failure. These people obviously do not have the stamina to succeed in business, and it is better for them that they got out early, rather than go on until they have a nervous breakdown.

Kristina also mentioned the high suicide rate. My friend pointed out that anyone who takes this route out of business problems is obviously not psychologically suitable to run a business, so it is no wonder they failed. Sad that they killed themselves, but if you cannot take the stress of failure without taking this route, you should never even consider such a risky career move.

[Simon Dog]

Citizens are increasingly believing whatever they want to believe.  "Alternative facts" are dangerous.

It's dangerous when everyone can concentrate their news reading on sources that support their view.   If all the Democrats stick to CNN and Republicans to Fox, we will have a very poorly informed electorate.   The big problem is that Democrats declare "CNN is the accurate one" while the Republicans say the same thing about Fox - with each ignoring what the other advocacy org (which is what the major networks have all too often become) has to say.

[MooseMom]

Paul, I'm sure you are right in saying that the problem wasn't necessarily one of religion, rather, it was one of being a "foreigner" from a culture so very different.  Thank you for pointing out the difference.

Simon Dog, people associated with Fox News will all tell you that their daytime reporting is entirely different from their nighttime opinion/talk show host shows.  Their reporters have the reputation of being good journalists while the Hannities of that network do not.  So, it is not merely a matter of which side you are on, rather, it is a matter of whether or not you want facts.

One cannot say the same about CNN.  You can deem them to be an "advocacy org", but that does not make it so. 

We all have the ability to think critically and outside of our own personal political bubble.  If I see a big news story on CNN, I do check Fox to see how they are covering it.  I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this, and I'm confident that those who get their news from Fox would check out another news source if something they hear just doesn't ring true.

Still, I get your point, and it is true that it is becoming a problem.  There is a reason Trump said that he loves the poorly educated.  We all have the opportunity to educate ourselves.  We just have to want to.

[kristina]

I am very impressed by your absolute certainty ! But ... how can you be so certain, that the news you rely on, are really true and are "real" news?

I'm not "absolutely certain", I am "reasonably sure", there is a big difference, it meant that I am always aware I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. But either way it is better than your position, which is "blind guessing with no real information to base those guesses on". Your policy of not listening to any news, but believing what a "mate down the pub told you" is a guarantee that you are going to be wrong.

I remember the Thatcher-years when citizens in the UK were urged to become "enterprising" and set up in business......and all of a sudden many people were left overnight in bankruptcy and were even left homeless, after they had lost everything

Oh you mean people like Richard Branston, Alan Sugar, John Mills, Duncan Bannatyne, Theo Paphitis, Anita Roddick, Peter Jones, Piers Linney, James Caan, Deborah Meaden, etc., etc., etc...... I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher but even I have to admit that most people who made their money in her time are still rich. However as well as these competent businessmen who accepted her call, a lot of idiots who were not competent to run their own company tried it. Their failure was due to their stupidity or (more often) their greed, a sort of "make money quickly by cutting corners" business method, never a good idea (nor a morally correct one). These are the people who went bust.

A few years back I was talking to a guy who had set up his own business and was now selling up because if he did not he was about to go bankrupt and loose everything. He was telling me, proudly, that he had set up the business without being able to read and write.  He could sign his name, but could not read or write anything else. So he could sign contracts, but could not read what he was agreeing to by signing the contract! And he wondered why his business was going bust!

The problem with your opinion of this period is that you don't follow the news. So you only have the information that friends give you. Presumably some of these friends have friends who went bust because they were too greedy, or too stupid to run a successful business. But you don't blame you friends for things like that. So when they tell you the story it is all Thatcher's fault, she could be an evil woman at times, so it is easy and believable to blame her for things that were not her fault. Sadly without real news to guide you, you have no choice but to believe your friends.

Sure, if you follow the news, some of it will be wrong. It is up to the listener to work out which is the false stuff, which is surprisingly little (provided you are careful of your news sources), but still some. And occasionally you will make a mistake and believe something that is false, or disbelieve something that is true. But if you are reasonably intelligent you will be wrong less than five percent of the time, which means you will be right ninety five percent of the time. That is a hell of a lot better than not watching the news, and relying on a "mate down the pub" to give you the facts. Then you will be uninformed 50% of the time, misinformed 50% of the time, and correct only rarely.

And you will end up posting on boards like this that you are totally unaware of Brexiteers having a particular view when about half of them (i.e. about 25% of the population of Britain) are shouting these things from the rooftops.

I am quite surprised how you describe my thinking, my life-style etc., especially since we have never ever met ... and ... I don't really understand where you are coming from, but it does not sound like a nice place.
P.S. How about going back to the original discussion about Brexit?

[Simon Dog]

Simon Dog, people associated with Fox News will all tell you that their daytime reporting is entirely different from their nighttime opinion/talk show host shows.  Their reporters have the reputation of being good journalists while the Hannities of that network do not.  So, it is not merely a matter of which side you are on, rather, it is a matter of whether or not you want facts.

One cannot say the same about CNN.  You can deem them to be an "advocacy org", but that does not make it so. 

When you can predict which stories will get top billing, or how headlines are written, based on which network is reporting, you know there is bias (and this goes for both Fox and CNN).   Both networks skew the selection of stories, and how various facts are presented, to suit their agenda, even when they both accurately report non-alternative facts. It is possible to accurately present facts, but subtly introduce bias in how they are presented, what details are emphasized, and how prominently they are featured in the presentation (early in the broadcast; top of the homepage; front newspaper page above the fold; etc.)

For example, when the homeowner apprehended the escaped convicted with his AR15, I predicted, before the news was on the respective sites, that the Fox headline would highlight "armed homeowner captures criminals" and the CNN news article would bury that tidbit deep in the article and not even mention an AR15 was used.  Turns out both predictions were right on.   Fox supports the R agenda on guns; CNN supports the D agenda.

There is a reason Trump said that he loves the poorly educated.

Gruber (MIT person, a principal architect of Obamacare) said the same thing about stupid voters and the need to mislead to get legislation passed.    Both parties are more alike than different in moral character.

[MooseMom]

No, both parties are not more alike than different in moral character.  If you really believe that Trump is "more alike than different in moral character" than Obama, then I am sad for you.  The GOP is Trump's party now.

Do you think that Sean Hannity is a better investigative journalist than, say, Rachel Maddow?

You are talking about bias, whereas I am talking about facts.  They are not the same. 

Gruber was not elected President.  False equivalency again.

[Michael Murphy]

Moose Mom I was a system programmer for 40 years.  During that time I saw technology issues that became so devisive that they were referred to as Religious wars.  Examples were tcp vs osi, Unix vs vms, c vs c++, Bourne shell vs Korn  shell, the list is endless.  In dialysis hemo, pd, home all have proponents that defend their choice with a fervor that is religious in its intensity.  Politics too brings this type of human interaction into play.  The end result of these interactions usually is worked out over time hopefully the political side of this will resolve itself in time.  My favorite examples Coke Pepsi, VHS Betamax,  iPhone Android,    PC Mac .

[Simon Dog]

During that time I saw technology issues that became so decisive that they were referred to as Religious wars.

I'll bet you even remember the IJKLMN rule.

Koran shell

The Koran shell with all those Arabic characters is as painful to use as the Korean edition of Windows.

In dialysis hemp

They are in the process of licensing mairjuana distributors in the DPRM (Democratic People's Republik of MA) now, however, I do not see my clinic on the list.

The end result of these interactions usually is worked out over time hopefully the political side of this will resolve itself in time.  My favorite examples Coke Pepsi, VHS Betamax,  iPhone Android,    PC Mac

Some of these wars are won - think Beta vs. VHS.    Others are destined to wage on forever - Coke v. Pepsi; PV vs Mac, etc.  I doubt the political will "Resolve itself over time" because different groups of people will always have varying viewpoints as to the relationship of the government to the governed (which is the root cause of much of the division)

[MooseMom]

I doubt the political will "Resolve itself over time" because different groups of people will always have varying viewpoints as to the relationship of the government to the governed (which is the root cause of much of the division)

I agree with you here!    And what is interesting is that The Constitution is supposed to spell out that relationship, but we STILL find ways to have those varying viewpoints!

[Paul]

I am quite surprised how you describe my thinking, my life-style etc., especially since we have never ever met ... and ... I don't really understand where you are coming from, but it does not sound like a nice place.

We have never met, I was simply going by what you said about yourself in your posts. You cannot state that you never listen to the news, then be surprised because someone assumes you never listen to the news! Similarly, having stated that you never listen to the news, you cannot get upset when someone points out that you are uninformed on news matters.

In short "where I am coming from" is what you have been telling us about yourself in this thread. You may not think it a nice place, but it is a place of your creation, not mine.

[MooseMom]

Do you all think the UK should stay in the customs union?  What do you think Brexit should actually look like, and how do you think it should actually function?

[Paul]

I think we should have some form of customs union, and I think it should be as close as possible to what we had when we were in the EU but without as many regulations and restrictions. However many people disagree with me. Also I think, sadly, that "as close as possible to what we had when we were in the EU but without as many regulations and restrictions" is "pie in the sky" wishing, and is not going to happen. We are either going to have little or no customs union, or we are going to have a shed load of regulations and restrictions.

[kristina]

I am quite surprised how you describe my thinking, my life-style etc., especially since we have never ever met ... and ... I don't really understand where you are coming from, but it does not sound like a nice place.

We have never met, I was simply going by what you said about yourself in your posts. You cannot state that you never listen to the news, then be surprised because someone assumes you never listen to the news! Similarly, having stated that you never listen to the news, you cannot get upset when someone points out that you are uninformed on news matters.

In short "where I am coming from" is what you have been telling us about yourself in this thread. You may not think it a nice place, but it is a place of your creation, not mine.

Crikey! That was a pretty good attempt to inspire & goad me into a personal "battle", I'll give you that !
... But I have to disappoint you ... as ... I am not into that “sort of thing” ...
I shall leave it at that and wish you good luck ...
Kristina.

[Paul]

Crikey! That was a pretty good attempt to inspire & goad me into a personal "battle", I'll give you that !

Seriously? All I did was quote back at you what you said about yourself (precied), and pointed out the obvious conclusion to your claim that you do not follow the news. And you consider that a call to war? It is a bloody good job you are not into that sort of thing, or you would spend most of your life in personal battles.

[kristina]

                   - If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. -
                                                                                -         Anon       -

                                                      -    I never think of the future – it comes soon enough.   -
                                                                            -       Albert Einstein      -

[MooseMom]

Not to worry, citizens of the United Kingdom!

President Trump will be visiting your fine nation on FRIDAY THE 13TH (of July). 

He'll sort you out.   

[Paul]

Not to worry, citizens of the United Kingdom! President Trump will be visiting your fine nation on FRIDAY THE 13TH (of July).

That is going to be so much fun. Protests, egg throwing, tomato throwing, chanting insults, maybe even the odd burning of the Stars and Stripes. Trump is not going to get the reception he expects, unless what he is expecting is "the worst day of his life bar none".

Trump haters are going to love the visit, and Trump lovers are gonna want to nuke the UK.

[Paul]

Actually, getting back on topic,: Trump, like Obama, is greatly against Brexit. Both think it will ruin Britain and sour Anglo-American trade. It will be interesting to see if Trump brings this up while over here.

[cassandra]

Nah Trump thinks Brexit is a brilliant idea, he'll brings us a great, great trade deal (which would not have been poss while in the EU.


In the mean time Hungary is waking up Brussels (EU)

[Paul]

Nah Trump thinks Brexit is a brilliant idea, he'll brings us a great, great trade deal (which would not have been poss while in the EU.

He has changed his mind then. Originally he wanted Britain to stay in the EU so that trade deals with the US would give the US a back door into Europe. (This would not have worked, but what can I say, Trump is an idiot!)