Are you and "in" or an "out"?

1404143454650

Comments

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭
    http://www.mmcgrath.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/economic-graph.jpg

    I'm probably jumping the gun here but I'm wondering if the peaks and troughs in the economic growth are directly connected with the boom and bust housing market cycle.

    Our economy does try to champion manufacturing as a way of increasing economic growth, but seems to get shoved aside as risky compared to sterile but profitable property sector.

    Btw. My wife says that anyone reading these posts must think our lives are full of thrills.

    Not sure about that. But at least I'm trying to make some sense of the situation.

    Another 50 points on my own IQ could be handy though. I'm almost out of my depth. Keep swimming.

  • Sentence from a national newspaper today:

    "Ministers are privately already conceding that the Government is likely to lose the case and warning that the Supreme Court will create a "constitutional crisis" when it returns its ruling in January."

    Pretty revealing.  Excluding the possibility that 'Ministers' are suggesting political bias on the part of the Supreme Court, which would be beneath contempt, that means: we know we're in the wrong so far as the law goes but we are going to blame the Supreme Court to curry political popularity. 

    What it ought to create is actually a political crisis, not a constitutional one, because 'Ministers' have given people a false understanding of how the process would work, and people will justifiably angry. They will create a constitutional crisis if they deliberately try to undermine confidence in the judiciary in order to promote their own political popularity.  But they won't be able to resist doing it.

    Also striking how few people have the beginning of an understanding what the case before the Supreme Court is all about, not that it stops them from holding very 'strong' opinions about it.  There's something missing from our education when people understand so little about how their country is supposed to function.

  • image if people understood how the country was supposed to function, we wouldn't need politicians because there would be an infallible process for everything at every level of administering society.



    There isn't. There is a flexible framework of evolving best practice to serve the common good.
  • Um, I meant at a rather more basic level - separation of powers and what have you.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    At a very basic level.

    If 'the vote' was generally regarded as 'advisory'. Was the Government actually under any obligation to take any notice of the result?

    This is an unusual situation as this must be the first time any Government has had a direct answer to a direct question which they assumed to already know the answer.

    And got wrong.

  • The government isn't obliged to enact the result.  It isn't a result you can simply enact anyway, which is why there is such a palaver at the moment.

    It doesn't help that the Referendum Bill was promoted in Parliament as advisory, but the voters were given the impression it would be binding.

  • I think the fact that it was advisory was very clear to anyone who was paying attention.

     

     

  • JT141JT141 ✭✭✭
    Is there any universally accepted definition as to what "hard brexit" actually means? I've heard it used to imply quite a few different things recently. Or are we in the murky world of amorphous facts and words that mean something, nothing or anything as and when it suits?
  • Ah - the specific plans are beginning to emerge at last. It's going to be a "red, white and blue" Brexit.

  •  

    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    I think the fact that it was advisory was very clear to anyone who was paying attention.

     

     

    Except for the fact that the government very clearly put this line in their own leaflet :

    "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
     
    making it very much NOT advisory. Granted not in a pur legal sense, but no one except lawyers thinks in a purely legal sense, and the intimation given to the whole country by that statement was pretty clear that it was binding. If it were to be advisory they would have put something akin to :

    "This is your decision. The Government will take on board what you decide."

  • Taking on board is definitely not the same as acting upon it - as we all know.
  • That must be one of the daftest promises ever made. 

  • #peoplearestupid
  •  
    Booo wrote (see)

     

    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    I think the fact that it was advisory was very clear to anyone who was paying attention.

     

    Except for the fact that the government very clearly put this line in their own leaflet :

    "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
     
    making it very much NOT advisory. Granted not in a pur legal sense, but no one except lawyers thinks in a purely legal sense, and the intimation given to the whole country by that statement was pretty clear that it was binding. 


    Maybe Screamy should have edited "anyone who was paying attention" to "anyone who's read any party manifesto, ever."  Nobody in their right mind would believe that any promise made in a political leaflet is in any way binding.

     

  • https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-legally-binding-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliament

    Note the date of the article. 

    Cameron basically he said he would respect the vote and invoke A50 immediately. Not actually the same as the referendum being legally binding. And in the event he didn't do what he said he would do.

    So pretty much what Cheerful Dave says. 

    Lesson: take what politicians say with a pinch of salt and do your own research.

     

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Didn't Harold Wilson on winning an election, take the manifesto which was the basis of his campaign and just throw it in a bin saying to an aide, "Well, we're not going to do any of that rubbish".

    Forget it! no question.

    He did take the manifesto which was the basis of his campaign and just throw it in a bin saying to an aide, "Well, we're not going to do any of that rubbish".

    I like the way there's types who are still Screaming about stupid people believing lies and what have you, when they don't really know anything much themselves.

    Doesn't matter about lies and the truth. What matters is your exposure to the mechanisms of the fall out of the so called lies and truths, and how good you are at making sure you don't get shafted.

     

     

  • No idea what Harold Wilson did. 

    Cameron said what he said thinking he would win and from also changed his mind after the event saying "why should I deal with this shit? " Blatant lies ahead of the event can be uncovered simply by Googling. it isn't stupid, it's lazy.

    Stupid is preferring or disregarding the lie - and plenty of people seem to be doing that.

    But then a fair few are telling lies to other people, possibly even to themselves, about the reasons they voted to leave anyway  so maybe it isn't all that surprising. 

    But anyway, you, apparently didn't much care one way or the other and voted to leave on a whim so l am  surprised you are still posting here to be honest with you. 

     

  • It's surprising anyone outside of government is opining on Brexit any more unless you have "exposure to the mechanisms of the fall out of the so called lies and truths, and how good you are at making sure you don't get shafted."

    Then again, every voice counts and that's why we had the vote.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Screama -  How do you know I was telling the truth when I said I voted out?

    Stupid!

     

     

  • Well maybe it's because you can't fact check Joe Soap's personal opinion in the same way the way you can stats and other stuff in the public domain.

    But only if you can be bothered to, of course...

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Bottom line is - no one can know the entire truth about anything unless they were there in person, when it happened.

    That's as basic as it gets.

    Relying heavily on information which is at best, second hand, third hand, fourth hand, super corrupted Chinese Whispers hand, is risky.

    Too much potential for errors.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • JT141JT141 ✭✭✭
    This embrace of solipsistic thinking is really getting us into trouble. It amounts to a rejection of, or inability to engage in, considered critical thought. You end with views of nothing more than capricious smoke.
  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    I'm becoming a bit concerned about how my largely rhetorical posts might be upsetting Screamapillar.

    I'm not making that up.

     

     

     

  • Solipsistic capricious rhetoric (whatever that means) is filling these pages.

    See Boris actually said something right for a change (about Saudi Arabia) and gets slapped down by our grand trousers leader.
  • Maybe Boris is suffering from super-capri solipistic extra halitosis?

  • "Bottom line is - no one can know the entire truth about anything unless they were there in person, when it happened."

    It depends whether you are you are talking on the one hand in terms of some sort of absolute philosophical truth, or on the other hand about being able to be sure enough about something to make judgments for practical purposes. 

    Anyway, being there yourself is no guarantee, people notoriously mis-perceive and mis-remember things, you are dependent on your own faculties of perception and recollection, which are fallible.

    It will often happen that someone is convicted of murder without another person having seen them carry out the act, because a jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they carried it out from circumstantial evidence.  Circumstantial evidence can be very compelling.  Hearsay evidence is much more dodgy; it can be helpful but there is much greater risk.

  • RicF wrote (see)

    I'm becoming a bit concerned about how my largely rhetorical posts might be upsetting Screamapillar.

    I'm not making that up.

     

     

     

    You might not be making it up. But you are kidding yourself.

  • RicF wrote (see)

    Bottom line is - no one can know the entire truth about anything unless they were there in person, when it happened.

    That's as basic as it gets.

    Relying heavily on information which is at best, second hand, third hand, fourth hand, super corrupted Chinese Whispers hand, is risky.

    Too much potential for errors.

     

     

     It is perfectly possible to find accurate stats, facts and unbiased opinions if you look in the right places. 

    But, like I said before, only if you are bothered. 

    By the way I read an interview the other day with an American guy that used to run a fake news website. He said that conservatives swallowed all the crap he fed them while  never got anywhere with liberals who would debunk the story by about the third post every time. I'm guessing this is because they were better informed.

    ignorance: not a virtue.

    But anyway, blather on. I am off to the place I go to talk people who actually give a shit. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Only a bit concerned Screama.

    How much is a bit?

    Well since this argument is all about information via computers, I have a definition.

    A bit (short for binary digit) is the smallest unit of data in a computer. A bit has a single binary value, either 0 or 1. Although computers usually provide instructions that can test and manipulate bits, they generally are designed to store data and execute instructions in bit multiples called bytes.

    So not concerned much at all.

    Give my regards and commiserations to whoever has to endure your preaching's.

    /members/images/493151/Gallery/ess.jpg

     

     

     

     

  • RicF wrote (see)

    Well since this argument is all about information via computers, I have a definition.

    A bit (short for binary digit) is the smallest unit of data in a computer. A bit has a single binary value, either 0 or 1.

     

     

     

    Again this is a perfect illustrative point for this whole conversation ... RicF stated a bit can be only a 0 OR a 1 which is true, however in Quantum physics a bit can be both a 0 AND a 1.


Sign In or Register to comment.