Sarcasm, condescension, mischaracterisation

[smashedinductionhob]

I have been spending time on the Leave EU facebook page to try to see the other person's point of view.

I am picking up that there is a really strong reaction to being condescended to, having your words used against you, rhetorical questions, etc.

So my question to those celebrating A50: when people debate with you, how does the style of the debate make you feel/act? Does it make you rethink you views or does it harden them?

Thanks.

[Carolinesbeanies]

"is that everyone is equally well qualified to vote and act in their own best interests and their opinions are of equal value in informing debate and I stand by that."

1000% agree with that.

OP, Who has the more informed view? A cleaner in newcastle who knows exactly how much her/his shopping basket costs, and how long the housing queue is, or a highly educated Prof in Oxford who can only observe and base assumptions on data collated?
Knowing my cynicism re data, and/or the absence of it especially in politically sticky areas, Im with the cleaner. Government used to be far better informed when they chatted to their black cab taxi drivers.

[blaeberry]

I felt the quality of debate around the referendum itself was very poor and a lot has followed from that. For example, the notorious £350 million. We weren't voting for or against a party with this as a manifesto pledge or indeed any ability to deliver so it now makes no sense to expect this. We were voting yes/no and how either outcome would be shaped would depend on the government in power or those we subsequently vote into power. Just as the SNP cannot guarantee any particular action in Scotland following independence or not as they may not be in power either.

[scottishdiem]

I think my biggest issue has been about the lies about the EU. There has been so much chat about taking back control and sovereignty. Yet the government white paper on leaving the EU stated that Westminster has always been sovereign but the it didn't feel like it sometimes.

How can you have a debate on the facts of a matter when so so many people voted leave because of the feels. How many EU stories in the Daily Mail and Daily Express were true? Where are the facts of leavers choices? Not the feels, the facts?

[blaeberry]

Sorry voting leave/remain - yes/no was deemed too biased.

[smashedinductionhob]

"OP, Who has the more informed view? A cleaner in newcastle who knows exactly how much her/his shopping basket costs, and how long the housing queue is, or a highly educated Prof in Oxford who can only observe and base assumptions on data collated?"

The cleaner for some things, the prof for others?

I hear what you are saying as I am involved in an aspect of education i.e. I go into a school and DO stuff with actual children, and an Oxford prof has kindly given me his book on the topic and it makes me want to SCREAM so I kind of feel like a taxi driver/cleaner there....

Does that mean that Uber is responsible for Brexit?

[Carolinesbeanies]

"Does that mean that Uber is responsible for Brexit?" 😀

I do think, an awful lot of arguments would be avoided if data we all need to know, was available.

For example, how long and how passionate, has the row about migrant impact of social housing been? However, if you ask your local council for stats on nationality, they will tell you they dont keep that sort of data. They have masses on ethnicity, and will swill those stats around in whichever way shape or form the question demands. But nationality, no. Your professor in Oxford cant answer that one either. He can guess, or make an average assumption. But he doesnt know and neither does government.

[Petronius16]

Recently I was shocked to discover the UK has no register of immigrants. As you say Caroline how can we debate without factual information?

[smashedinductionhob]

I think there are certain argument-tools that are perfectly valid in the fields of

• journalism
  
• cross-examination
  
• opposition questions to Government
  

but which are pretty useless everywhere else

I wouldn't miss them one little bit.

[IndianWinter]

"I do think, an awful lot of arguments would be avoided if data we all need to know, was available." That would be nice. But Brexit isn't about facts it's about ideology, not a good ideology either. Most leavers don't like facts, economy, politics etc. probably don't understand macro economics. They love to be fed the simple narrative of the deserving english hard working and the rest e.g. experts, metro elite, Eu citizens, the EU, people on benefits.

[howabout]

Facts, economy, and politics and macro economics all in the same sentence? There are facts and then there is all the rest. Understanding that is all you need.

[scottishdiem]

"Brexit isn't about facts it's about ideology, not a good ideology either. Most leavers don't like facts, economy, politics etc. probably don't understand macro economics"

This.

For example, the social housing issue touched upon by Carolinesbeanies. Is the lack of social housing cause by immigrants? Brexiters basically say yes. But they do not mention the right to buy policy where people get a cheap house that they can profit from as well as remove it from the social housing market. Between April 2012 and November 2015 a total of 40,603 homes were sold under right to buy. Over the same period, work began on a mere 3,694 properties funded by the proceeds – a replacement rate of around one home for every 11 sold. Where is the Brexit analysis of this? Never mind the hatred of building new houses on our green and pleasant land.

And lets look at immigration stats. Every year from 1990-2015, non-EU migration (i.e. migrants that the UK lets in after some kind of application) is greater than EU migration (i.e. where people can just come). All Brexit does is change is how people come in. The numbers arent really going to change.

[Figmentofmyimagination]

Brexit is most definitely an ideology, but in broad terms, the 'idea' of brexit is shared by millions of people.

A good reading tip ATM is yuval harari's new best seller 'homo deus - a brief history of tomorrow'. Nowadays I seem to see 'brexit-related' issues in everything I pick up to read, but this book - following on from the amazing 'sapiens', helps you think about and understand better the evolution and power of ideologies. Very interesting - however you voted!

[missmoon]

Re. the data, we don't know nationality, but we do know country of birth from the census and other surveys (these are geocoded, so we can calculate changes for very small areas). The two are very highly correlated, especially for EU citizens who are (or at were until recently) very unlikely to have become UK citizens. Not quite sure what the cleaner vs. professor comment implies. Every voter (regardless of their occupation) has their own personal experience and observations, but these are necessarily constrained by things they can see or experience. Individual observation is always biased, regardless of who the observer is (that includes the professor!). Statistical research can show trends that individuals can't possibly observe in their entirety. That's why government funding decisions for specific locations should be based on statistical data not on individual observations.

[caroldecker]

But Brexit isn't about facts it's about ideology I disagree. The EU is much more than a regional trading block, it is a political entity. Take regulations, for example. If I want to trade with the US, I have to accept US regulations. If I want to trade with France, I have to accept EU regulations. If I want to trade with my neighbour, I have to accept EU regulations. Very few trading blocks have this.
One trivial example is the power of vacuum cleaners. If I sell to France, I have to follow their rules on power output. Why can we not buy higher output ones from the US? Because the EU bans them.
It is perfectly possible to have a free trade agreement with the EU very quickly. We have the same regulations/standards etc. The only thing that needs debating is 'how to deal with changes to regulation in the future' and 'British/EU content of goods'.
Customs controls are not an issue. The USA and Canada do not have a customs union and they have very few delays despite having the same level of trade through the same number of land borders. We actually have higher levels of delays due to searches for smugglling (people and drugs). The Turkish border has huge delays despite being in the EU custom union.
There is also nothing to stop co-operation on security, research, education etc on a take it or leave it basis (ie pay into Erasmus, get benefits) works for many non-EU countries.
Norway and Switzerland are not part of the customs union, but have few land border controls. There is no reason we couldn't have a similar resolution in Ireland.

[smashedinductionhob]

right, time to settle down on the sofa and read the thread properly.

[Carolinesbeanies]

'Most leavers don't like facts, economy, politics etc. probably don't understand macro economics. They love to be fed the simple narrative of the deserving english hard working and the rest e.g. experts, metro elite, Eu citizens, the EU, people on benefits.'

Really? But staying on topic. Condescension? Mischaracterisation?

"Is the lack of social housing cause by immigrants? Brexiters basically say yes" Firstly I said, the 'impact' on social housing. Who knows? Secondly, irrespective of voting preference, very few would argue with you on the impact of Margaret Thatchers right to buy initiative. When you can answer the first part however, what is the migrant impact? then have the debate. I dont believe social housing issues are eu related, but there clearly is some impact. The argument is how much. So Id read your post as mischaracterisation.

On the ideology 'accusation', considering the EU are very proud that their very basis is founded on the ideologies of democracy, free market, human rights etc (you must have all to be a member), Perhaps youre confusing the fact that remainers fight from the standpoint of 'knowns', whereas Leavers clearly cant. Thats not a particularly difficult argument to win until you have a brexit to compare it to. Id probably put this post in the condescension bucket.

[smashedinductionhob]

One argument for Remain is that Leaving is a major change. Change is almost invariably a) costly b) requires a longish transition period.

Committing to a) means that money is not available for other things, and we have already been told to whistle for the £350 million for the NHS. b) No long transition period is on the table.

Other arguments - to trade with the EU will we need to comply with their laws, but have lost the chance to influence those laws.
Add message | Report | Message poster howabout Thu 30-Mar-17 13:42:51

[smashedinductionhob]

Sorry, that is quoting a pp.

I just thought it was good -simple.

[smashedinductionhob]

[smashedinductionhob]

Carol, are you saying that the EU has an unnecessarily high level of control/homogeneity in its trading rules compared to other trading blocks?

And that this excessive level of regulation is driven by the belief that greater unity/ever closer union is a good thing always for ideological reasons (i.e. The ideology that it protects against war, etc?).

[caroldecker]

Change is not always costly.
However people do not like uncertainty, so are more nervous. Change to the EU is gradual, so people worry less about it. Brexit is considered more sudden, hence the Remain worries about the economy crashing immediately after the vote/triggering of article 50.
I believe any Brexit change will be gradual as both sides move to an arrangement similar to the one we have now, but both sides capable of independent change in the future. These future changes will be gradual.
People also suffer loss aversion. People place more value on something they have over something they could get in the future, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. This also drives concern.

[WidowWadman]

I'm long past caring about the why people decided to vote leave. It's been an emotional rather than a rational thing, thus should never have been subject to a referendum.

I do care deeply about the consequences though, and the consequences are what feeds my anger and grief. That and the way how the government has chosen to go about it, with no attempt to even acknowledge those who want to remain.

[NinonDeLanclos]

OP, Who has the more informed view? A cleaner in newcastle who knows exactly how much her/his shopping basket costs, and how long the housing queue is, or a highly educated Prof in Oxford who can only observe and base assumptions on data collated?

Where does the idea come from that an Oxford Prof doesn't know what their shopping costs?

The remark was clearly meant to indicate the Prof was out of touch, but only serves to show the writer is.

[smashedinductionhob]

Carol, from your last point I would predict a remain victory?

[caroldecker]

Smashed Yes there is too much homogeneity. Why does Scotland want control over NHS/schools etc. This is partly because rural areas such as the Highlands require a different solution to cities such as London.
Homogeneity encourages specialization is certain areas. In the US, for example, Detroit specialized in cars. This can work if there are fiscal transfers between areas, so in the 60's Detroit paid more in to federal funds, it now takes more out, as other specialties come to the fore.
The EU would work with centralized taxes and federal spending, but not in the current worst of both worlds state. People who genuinely believe in the EU should be pushing for better, further integration rather than the status quo.