Anyone going to watch the Ruth Davidson v Boris Johnson debate this evening?

[squoosh]

I'd given up watching these debate programmes but may tune in for one last hurrah.

Rucker Ruth v Brawler Boris

Who's your money on?

How can you say there are no experts? This is anti intellectual nonsense.

Of course there are experts - people who have studied and worked in the field, experienced and involved. The public lack expertise, and may lack expertise in navigating the biases and prejudices of the press and politicians, and will believe lies and half truths.
But there are undoubtedly plenty of available facts if you want to find them.

Just snorted a bit at Khan being accused of having pre-prepared sound bites.

Stuart and Leadman of course, said "as a mother" many, many times as part of their totally off the cuff, thought up in the moment retorts...

There are no experts, they are all giving their opinion, nothing more nothing less. These 'experts' are making it up as they go along.

Yeah, who wants information from people who have actually equipped themselves with skills and knowledge on the relevant topic. I like to make important decisions on the basis of fear, jingoism, suspicion, engrained prejudices and a hunch that johnny foreigner is usually up to something dodgy.

Not all opinions are equal. My views on brain surgery are worth nothing compared to a brain surgeon. It is a nonsense to claim otherwise.

peggyundercrackers

It is ludicrous to suggest there are no experts.

For example, please watch the video I linked earlier (1:39 today) produced by Univetsity of Liverpool and an expert in EU law. He has a PhD in EU Law and has spent the past twenty years researching it and advising govts on it.

Then come back and tell me why he's not an expert!

He is undoubtedly an expert in EU law.

No one is an expert in the merits of applying EU law, however, and the relative merits of decreased sovereignty.

Big difference.

Indeed, the personal opinions and judgements that people come to about the rights and wrongs of sovereignty / immigration / economics are personal and people cannot be experts on that.

But you can have experts on the facts and evidence that inform people's judgements and opinions. Of which he is one.

He really knows his stuff and he's worth a watch!

Is he your boss Kitka?

There are no experts, they are all giving their opinion, nothing more nothing less. These 'experts' are making it up as they go along.

When a surgeon does an operation, they may have the benefit of tests/scans. But they don't know what will happen when they open up and start operating. They don't know how the patient will react under anaesthetic. They don't know whether they will find something unexpected. They don't know whether they will make a slight mistake and cause a bleed where they shouldn't. They plan for this though.

The experience and knowledge they have, makes all the difference to whether the patient survives or not.

And yes, they do make it up as they go along. Based on this experience and based on how things are connected and balance of odds. Especially when things don't go exactly to plan. They have a back up plan and idea of what will happen in an emergency situation too and have a strategy to deal with that too.

This is why you don't let someone with no experience and no knowledge perform surgery. This is why trainees are supervised and have to spend so long studying and gaining that experience.

They know the worse case scenarios and they let you know before you walk into that room for the operation, so that you can make an informed decision.

Sometimes they do get it wrong. And that's that's not a good thing, but we acknowledge that they are human and we can't expect them to get it right every time and that sometimes things are out of their control and beyond what could have been predicted. Harm is not something they do deliberately, or out of spite, or primarily for their own self interest (though self interest is part of everything everyone does). And its not in their own interest to get it wrong, as it damages their performance record and since they are human, they understand that it affects the lives of others.

The minute we start dismissing expert opinion and expert skills I worry. You then step onto the train of rhetoric alone.

How do you trust that rhetoric? Simply because you feel let down by everyone else? Surely that's cutting your nose off to spite your face? Save the NHS a few quid by turning to some alternative medicine off the internet instead because its advertising slogan is 'We will save your life. Reclaim your health! Take super pills.'

People DO have their own agendas. They don't necessarily share the same interests as you. At the same time they, this doesn't make them untrustworthy and wrong.

If the world you want to live in is one devoid of experts, then that is your choice.

But think about what you are really saying too. You don't want your children educated, you don't want healthcare, you don't want a bank manager, you don't want security services, you don't want fire and rescue services. At what point do you stop? Or is it a complete rejection of education we are talking here?

You just want to believe in a Better Britain. Belief is an amazing thing that makes a huge difference to the lives of people and should not be underestimated and dismissed. But then neither is experience and expertise.

The only way Britain gets better, is with both.

This debate confirmed for me that the leave side have no concrete plans in place if we do leave. Their only plan is to 'take control' and some vague plans of an Australian style points system to curb immigration. That's it - no strategy, no economic plan and when asked by the audience they couldn't even give target figures on immigration. Boris is highly entertaining but just not convincing as a leader. I wanted to be convinced but I certainly wasn't.

Great post redtoothbrush

I wanted to be convinced but I certainly wasn't.
There was a more grown up conversation on the economy on R4 Womens Hour this morning apparently. Ruth Lea the economist and Vicky Pryce. I am going to listen later:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07gct4g

Kitla - yes took a look. Your Professor is omitting and playing with words which reflect his biased EU view.

He omits words to give a certain image of us directing the EU. We do not. Our MEPs are toothless except to shape a proposal that the Commission initiated - if Commission don't like reshaping by Council and MEPs - a unanimous vote is required; or, if they are happy with changes and it contains "spirit of the treaties" they issue a 2/3 vote required.

As more countries join our vote will become even more diluted. The new countries will look to make alliances with other smaller and poorer countries.

Experts are to be listened to as a basis for your own research on the matter. EU is very complicated - this is another reason it is so wasterful.

He is clearly pro EU. If people wish to vote remain - then yes he'll confirm your view of the EU. Hopefully, however, you've also researched more fully behind what he says and can spot the "ommissions", but are still happy to proceed with his view of a benign higher aurthority above our Courts and Parliament that he believes we gave permission for...

We have not agreed to have European Court - superior to ours. We have been lied to by previous Prime Ministers and EU and now find ourselves in this position. Some say our Prime Ministers were lied to by Commission - apparently Thatcher felt misled.

This is our first opportunity to give our instruction to all our future elected governments that we do not give them permission to sign part of our democracy over to a higher aurthority, particularly in light of the fact we are unable to remove the Commission and the ECJ are there to enforce all laws passed and are superior to our Courts.

We do not have the opportunity to put a different Executive (Comission) in place. We do not vote on manifesto that the Commission wish to initiate. We vote for MEPs who have right to "ASK", along with a majority of other MEPs, for the Commission to consider inititating the "non controversial and in the spirit of treaties" initiatives. The Commission, whom we don't ever elect, decide which initiatives MEPs propose will proceed to drafting and being considered by Council and MEPs.

Those voting for leave wish our democracy to be returned to us in full and intact, so we can then choose and pass to a new representative when we are no longer happy with who is in power. We are unable to remove or select the Commission.

We are unable to overturn any laws that passed through on 2/3 majority but don't suit UK. The ECJ will enforce them, that is their remit. ECJ not connected with European Court of Human Rights - an entirely non EU entity, just happens to be in the locale.

As we now at the point where most of the virgin initiatives have been passed and exist (see current state of Europe for further information) - there are fewer virgin initiatives for the Commission - they are more happy for the business lobbyists and EU leaders (again by majority) to propose initiatives that are good for big businesses. See Goldman Sachs sponsoring Remain.

As for our Prime Ministers etc. requesting and shaping initiatives - remember Junker is also a non voting member of the Council as well as being President of the Commission - handy that for helping with the "shaping" of that Comission proposal at the next stage in Council.

On election Junker says there is no rush for "harmonisation" we should have patience to achieve our destination (EU state). Frankly, I found his wording sinister of a slowly, slowly catchey monkey type. Obviously things have had to speed up somewhat since he made that statement, as so many other banking systems are due to come under enormous pressure in the EUzone (happening now, just not being reported).

Those voting for leave wish our democracy to be returned to us in full and intact, so we can then choose and pass to a new representative when we are no longer happy with who is in power. We are unable to remove or select the Commission.

Exactly. That is the heart of the matter.

It is the only sound way to run a country.

Really well explained LeaveTheRoundabout

*This worries me: "I started out intending to vote 'Remain' - I am cautious by nature; but I am now voting Leave. Remain is all about negativity and fear around leaving, and not positive reasons for remaining."

So instead of thinking about what's best for the future peace and security of the country, you're basing your vote on the quality of a hastily cobbled-together, randomly funded, cross-party campaign strategy? That's an OK strategy to use in a general election, but this goes somewhat beyond that.*

Er no, please don't tell me what I'm basing my vote on. I started out going to vote Remain for reasons of safety and security/ better the devil you know. Then I did lots of research, read all the in and out debates, read all the experts, found out a lot more about the EU. And what I saw I didn't like. Plus it became obvious that the Remain camp struggled to come up with positives reasons for remaining....at heart, does anyone really feel passionate about the EU project? What it's become, and where it's heading? The more research I did, the more it became obvious that the EU is clearly, unambiguously, heading in the direction of a superstate. With an openly-discussed EU army. In which we would be merely one of 28, 29, 30, etc 'states'. Bound in by a myriad of laws which we have no power to rescind, as the EU court is the supreme court of our land. It's undemocratic. And worrying.

I AM thinking of what's best for the security and future of our country. That's exactly what I'll be thinking about when I vote leave.

The Commission have tried to appear to deal with their monopoly and undemocratic system.

However, even their own friendly review on whether Commission's monopoly on legislative initiative has been eroded, the conslusion are not good. Summary : Commission President sits in Council drafting - so not terribly democractic after all, funny that.

The Jaques Delors Institute, Paris report attached:
The Power of Initiative of the European Commission: A Progressive Erosion?

www.notre-europe.eu/media/commission_power_of_initiative_ne_feb2012.pdf?pdf=ok

With their clear bias, they come to the conclusion that the Council drafting stage of shaping laws that the Commission initiates is actually also particpated in by the Commission President, so not actually a clear separate entity stage from the Commission after all.

"Even though the power of initiative may provide the Commission with less freedom than between 1966 and the progressive affirmation of codecision as the ordinary legislative procedure, there may still be room for a bolder use of it in the framework of the Community Method as, formally, it has not been eroded to a significant extent.

The Commission has increasingly considered itself politically committed to following up the requests of the European Council. Indeed, the president of the Commission is also a member of the European Council and, as such, he participates in the drafting of its conclusions. At the end of the nineties, an internal study by the European Commission already showed that the “mandates” to the European Commission numbered between five and ten requests at each session of the European Council. Further, the Council may request the Commission “to submit to it any appropriate proposals

The MEPs are toothless (see previous post).

EU is also riddled with corrupion, its the highest its ever been, the other nations...and the EU has no way of tackling it. All the money the poor nations get ...such a waste

My main issue is we all know power corrupts, in a general context.

Individuals may rise above it - but a cushy system leads to corruption. Do look up the Santer EU Commission corruption scandal for further information, if you didn't know - not so long ao really; or the UEFA; Christine La Garde - (IMF) investigations.

We, the electorate, should always have the power to remove those we have elected and are no longer happy with. That power should not pass too far from our hands by being passed to a higher authority (the EU) that we are then unable to elect/remove - decide if we are happy with their planned vision etc.

The wording in the treaties is vague and open to interpretation by Judges - forget lawyers - they just have an opinion on likely outcome - but Judges who may or may not be corruptible. Those EU Judges have supremecy over ours.

Our legal system is valued because our Judges are generally considered the least likely to be corrupted. (Exceptions every where in the world).

Which is why we should have power to remove and have laws overturned if they don't work for us. We have neither with the EU.

It is overly trusting to believe that these loosely worded treaties intrepreted by EU Judges, do not have the potential for future abuse.

Good post, Leave. The further away power and control is removed from us (geographically, politically, legally), the less power and control we the people have. We will simply become an outpost of an empire.

We will simply become an outpost of an Empire

There is some level of irony there - Great Britain had power because of an Empire it no longer has. The founding of the EU took place as that Empire was fragmenting. So, no Empire and outside the EU... Is that not even more marginalised?

Throughout history, empires have come and gone.

Do we willingly become subsumed into the next one?

That is the question.

If Europe is an Empire, I guess you are assuming the centre is Germany?

I don't know, I don't think the parallel works as Britain had offices of state in Commonwealth countries and many, many civil servants posted there to run imperial affairs. Britain sends elected members of the EU Parliament and govt ministers to negotiate on Britain's behalf in a community of nations. Now there may be arguments to be had about those negotiations, but that is not achieved by leaving the table.