British Indy: What Happens Now?

We seem to be talking about different kinds of experts. Predicting what the results of the vote might be is one thing; predicting what the actual consequences of Brexit might be is an entirely different area of expertise.

 

Fair enough,thanks for the polite reply.
And I also appreciate explanation as to how you reached your conclusion.
I also listened to experts,(and still do),such as Mervyn King the ex-Bank of England Governor,(English,was there 10 years),Professor Patrick Minford,etc.
And I gave these more credence because they were retired or appeared to have no personal agenda.George Soros has reportedly bet $100 million on Sterling becoming weaker ffs.
I've had a bad gut feeling since 1973,when I found out I had been lied to.And that feeling of being legged over has slowly worsened,each time a new,nonsensical diktat was imposed on us in the name of the EU.
Putin will only back off when someone stands up to him,(funnily enough exactly the same as the EU will do with this Brexit vote-how long is Juncker going to last now?).
If NATO stopped telling the world what they were going to do ,in advance of when they were going to do it,i.e,just moved thousands of troops tanks etc into the Ukraine and told the Russians to fuck off,there would be an outcome.Letting him do what he has done so far is exactly what caused the last War,different governments appeased Hitler until he thought fuck this I can steamroller these idiots.Remember the old saying about he who doesn't learn from history?
But nothing will be done if you rely on the agreement of 28 governments.There are too many axes to grind,too many selfish countries that want someone else to do it.
It's not divide and rule,and it's not Right vs Left.That Right wing tag is the medias way of trying to keep people they don't agree with out of Government.
The media ARE a good deal of the problem: they lie,twist words,take things out of context,and opine their own ideas,claim opinions as facts,choose soundbites that back up what they want to portray...even more than politicians,laws need to be passed that insist they state the truth and let the reader/viewer make up their own mind.You are right about Murdoch.
I have no fear of the future,because I'm 100% certain I made the right call.
Only one person I know voted to Remain btw.

 

Really "the media ARE the problem"? They are just the media everything from newspapers to random posts on social media, it's part of our political discourse and we the people that consume it, demand speculation along with the facts and then add our own speculation to it. Take MH 380 for example, the facts are it disappeared, some debris was found and there was momentary detection of a signal from one of the black boxes. If that was all that was allowed to be reported speculation would be rife (not that it already isn't). We can't blame the media on it's own, as if that would fix the problem, it's up to individuals to determine how they interpret it. We should not allow a state controlled media and have some safeguards against vested interesets controlling the media - which is no easy thing.

In the context of a Brexit, there were few facts and lots of speculation. It's up to the individual to digest all that and come up with a conclusion. If you did all that but in the end decided on a gut feeling, that's OK - psychologists would probably tell you that gut feeling is a result of all the media you have consumed anyway. So it's up to the individual to read widely, you can't legislate that just as much as you can't legislate to prevent the media from speculating.

 

Speculation is one thing,untruths are another.So is deliberately spinning an untruth because it suits the media outlets agenda.
As is printing reporting something in a manner as to imply a different meaning from that which the writer or speaker intended.
Ever seen those theatre posters on the side of buses in London?
The ones that say say,"A Great Family Show"!,"Best Show in Town"!!,and state where they lifted it from,The Sun/Mirror /whatever.
All bollocks.
What the paper actually said was,"don't bother with this crap,go and see Cats,it's the best show in town",or,"this should be a great family show,but the acting is dreadful".
But because the words were actually used in regard to the show,the theatre just lifts the bit that makes it sound good and bobs yer knob...
Don't tell me the critics don't collude with this shit,because I'm sure they do.
If you go back in history,(that damn history again),check out some old newspaper front pages.
You will see lots of dry reporting,the Prime Minister said this or that,not a great deal of opinion except where there is a specific opinions column,which is described as such.
Now we have media-led witch hunts:if they believe someone is guilty,they make damn sure they look guilty.On the other hand,if they want to paint a different picture,(a certain pair of doctors who's nipper got "kidnapped"),then sainthood beckons.
I have personal experience of this,(trade press),as has my mother-in law,national press.
In her case she was vilified by the socialist rags for daring to point out to Tony Blair that he was not supposed to be making a political speech to the Womens Institute as it is against W.I rules.
Only the Times printed the facts,and interviewed her fairly and printed the truth.
This referundum has been exactly the same,especially from the BBC.
I do not suggest that the media should be told what they can and can't say,only that there should be distinctions between fact and opinion
Because facts are what is known,and opinions and speculation are....just opinions and speculation.
They should be separate,and obvious to the reader/watcher as to which is which..that's not state control,that is tightening of regulations.

 

I get much of your sentiment except if you go back in history most of the populace couldn't read, public opinion wasn't disseminated through newspapers, their modern day equivalent is scientific journals rather than the media as we know it. Lies would have been spread back in the good old days, more likely through gossip, as it is today., but with many more people it isn't as efficient. I take your point when lies are directed at an individual through the media, even if you have the economic means to seek justice and gain a retraction and/or financial compensation the damage to reputation can be permanent. There were nasty, vindictive people in the good old days just as there are now.

 

these new found good manners are going to be a two way street?
anyhoo. reading here and call me a snob but by feck your overestimating the majority? of the electorate to Analise or indeed find the correct information
if and and when the opposition gets its act together just wait to see what happens when funding for a road/housing estate/bridge community project what ever, gets knocked back and the founding isnt available because london needs a new parliament building or what ever. how will the MSM report it? with responsibility? as always they will be setting one against the other.
of course Brittan (service sector) will continue to thrive (like scotland will as well) but will it trickle down? and when it doesnt who will our mostly right wing and tax avoiding press blame when their power base comes under threat? the creepy cornish? the numpty north? the whining welsh? the scrounging scots?.the irritable Irish? is that the english bull dog i can here snarling in the back ground?
the fall out and continued disintegration of British society will only accelerate. the brexiters have no plan.
its just money money money with many in here. and nasty immigration out there. try being positive you will say, try being realistic almost half will reply.

 

I think you are doing people back in the 1930'sfor instance etc a bit of a disservice,as most could read and write by then,but I take your point.
Thing is,newspapers and TV media nowadays seem to print stories that only have a grain of truth,the rest is all puff and nonsense.
When they quote a,"think tank",or claim that so and so is a,"respected",organisation: who funds the "think tank",and who,"respects", them?
My suspicious nature means I spend hours of my life,(yeah,I know,pretty fucking dull boy eh?),finding out.It's why my posts are so long,I can't help researching shit
Turns out that think tanks are just mouthpieces for their supporters view,(and wealthy individuals/big companies seem to have the spare cash),and "respected",just means,well...anybody,even the newspaper itself!.
So in my mind,the paper should state what the Think Tank exists for,and not use the word respected.By not recommending either way the consumer makes his own mind up,and if they knew that a pro-smoking think tank was owned by the baccy firms,they'd give less credence to what that TT says.
People claim they have less time nowadays,so twisting and distorting the truth makes it easy for media to manipulate public opinion.
And even worse,when the public fails to heed their message,they are full of venom and spite,like they are now,and how they were after the General Election.
I'd love to say that the older generation are immune to this sort of spin,but tbh I think a lot are just as susceptible to it as any other age group

 

i think you guys need to see the flip side from a non Unionist publication. i might just do it daily
The National - Scottish News, Sport, Politics and more

 

sounds like we ARE getting somewhere. ^.^.

 

[QUOTE="Pete1950,
"Some people refuse to take medical advice; that does not mean the doctor was incompetent.[/QUOTE]

How true, until of course an ambulance chasing solicitor tells them it was the doctors fault and they deserve compensation.

Do you think there will be any compensation for Brexit?

 

But sometimes it is and they are. Remember that economics is "the dismal science".

Both sides were exaggerating for political advantage.

 

It's a little bit early to say that Remain is the better option.
The vote was only last week and not much has changed since then.
It might well be proven to have been the better option and it might well not.

There are various forms of "experts". There are those who can explain the present and there are those who pretend to see the future.
In the first category, you might put a Ducati mechanic. When your bike goes wrong, he is likely to be able to fix it, because he knows a lot more about how it works than the simple buyer. A civil engineer will know how to make a bridge or dig a tunnel. A cabinet maker knows how to make a chair. They are experts in their field.

When it comes to predicting the future, things are a lot murkier. Opinions conflict wildly, because there is no guaranteed expertise on the future. My point about pollsters or even bookies, or those who gamble on the outcomes of markets is that they are not experts in that you can trust them to get it right. It's their best guess. When you are diagnosed with cancer, it's not a guess. The expert can see it, even if you can't.

People who tell you that leaving the EU will be a catastrophe are no more credible than those who tell you it's a step towards a bright new dawn. Quite likely it will be neither. Things will look not a huge amount different to how they do now. There will neither be 10m unemployed, nor a house for everyone that wants one.

 

One thing that no one has mentioned is the role of education in all this.

You have a government policy to get as many kids into university as possible, albeit at great expense. The idea is that you need a well-educated labour force because we live in technological times and the unskilled jobs have all left the country.

How do you square the success of this idea with the fact that we are told that immigration is essential because you can't find enough people with the requisite skills to do the jobs that need doing? Is that not odd?

 

The moment when Boris is told what the referendum result was:

 

Turkey is a secular country and has no state religion and promotes religious tolerance. Maybe more countries should be that way.

 

Your post was:
"When you consider the views of "experts", consider this:
The highly-paid financial experts had bet on Remain.
The bookies were so convinced of Remain that it was 10 to 1 on.
That is the level of expertise we are dealing with."
You were referring to those who had forecast that Remain would win, and who had turned out to be wrong in that, as a basis for rubbishing experts generally. I pointed out that analysing opinion polls and forecasting election results is a very different matter from analysing economic and political situations and forecasting long-term outcomes. Only in ten years' time will we (if we live that long) be in a position to look back and see, for certain and in hindsight, which forecasts were the most informative.

Forecasting future events is indeed difficult and complicated. It is also essential. CEOs running businesses, generals fighting wars, and economists advising on economic options all have to do it. Should we stop forecasting because the prognostications lack certainty?

When faced with a dilemma, one approach is to obtain as much advice as possible from the best available sources, consider it carefully, and follow it. Another possible approach is to ignore all advice, denounce all experts, and do the opposite. So which approach do you advocate @gliddofglood ?

 

Turkey is at a crossroads. It might move further down the road towards being a peaceful, prosperous, secular, free, democratic nation on the European model. Or it might retreat into its authoritarian, islamic, backward, underdeveloped Middle Eastern past.

The policy of the EU is to promote and encourage the former course, not the latter. Sadly it seems there are some who prefer to force Turkey down the latter path.