Read the article I quoted regading Brexit and point faults in its methodology (I lack the training). I’m open to be proven wrong in fields I’m not an expert on, but the argument should be something else than “I just don’t trust psychology”.
I appreciate the /s, but it’s a very important point that probably deserves more than a throwaway remark: there is a huge replication crisis in many fields of science - particularly those relying on statistics to shore up small sample sizes and no clear underlying theoretical guidance. Social sciences, economics are biology are all in trouble, to the point some journals have stopped allowing some of the most abusable statistical procedures. I don’t think that solves the problem - the issues are perverse incentives coupled with some easily (dare-I-say deliberately) confusing statistical methods, and there are plenty of the latter even if you can specific cases.
Agree, any deal that includes a lengthy transition period of business as usual will defer the worst effects, and of course if the UK backs into a Norway deal then it ought to be more or less business as usual. But a hard no deal Brexit will be bad for the EU, though much much worse for the UK of course. No one should want that.
I’m just looking forward to another two years of ‘BREXIT! NOTHING BUT BREXIT!’ in the news. We’re still in the easy bit: negotiating our future relationship is going to be even more of a nightmare. And it’s hardly like we’ll be prepared to leave the comforts of the SM/CU by the end of the transition period.
Disagree. Looking at the political declaration, what’s on offer isn’t much more than what’s in the withdrawal agreement, beyond some customs arrangement to replace the backstop (which is of course still only a possibility, not a commitment). So it’s just going to be more of the same as far as the Irish border is concerned, and then fiddling around the margins for everything else. On services, especially financial, the political declaration is really very unambitious. It’s barely Canada, let alone Canada plus plus plus.
At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK winds up in martial law. No doubt populist yellow-jacket type protests will begin as soon as no-deal Brexit actually happens, if not before. This despite the fact all those people would have voted to leave. 3,500 troops are already being mobilized, but that would be a mere gesture.
The tweet from Faisal Islam above was about a yellow jacket Brexiter protest. They were shouting “not British” and “rapist” at him when he was reporting live from the green outside Westminster on Sky News
Edit: just remember, according to our resident Brexiters shouting “not British” and “rapist” at brown Englishmen is “just a different opinion” and calling these racist scum nasty names makes me a Nazi too!
That tweet is kind of posturing, because I think the government would never announce that no-deal Brexit was its policy. It might say it’s going to happen because of the mean EU, but it would not embrace that outcome as desirable.
I’m not terrified by the preparations, but by the fact they’re happening so late. I’d be more sympathetic to arguments that we don’t want to waste money on things we might not need if we had in fact at least scoped this stuff out before the Article 50 negotiations, rather than scrambling to do it at the last minute for political reasons. And a lot of it, like new regulatory capacity and customs infrastructure, was going to be needed in any realistic scenario other than Remain.
I think it’s more that “no deal” is still an option at all is terrifying. I mean, we’re a rich country, and I shouldn’t have to be seriously considering stockpiling food and supplies for my family due to some kind of completely optional apocalypse. It’s all just so shockingly irresponsible.
It seems obvious to me that if May’s deal is the best they can do, then giving everyone a final “are you sure?” referendum on choosing that or remain is reasonable, easy to justify to the public, and would take “no deal” off the table.
Well, sure, but I actually think it’s less likely now than I did, say, 18 months ago. Particularly with unilateral revocation available, a truly accidental no deal seems unlikely, which wasn’t the case before, especially with the government determined to remove all possible safety valves. The terrifyingness of no deal just goes to show how foolhardy the government’s approach was, because it makes no sense as a threat in negotiations.
I mean, I agree, but as far as May’s concerned it also reduces the chances of a) her deal getting passed, and b) Brexit happening at all. Which is why the government is resisting it so hard. Her best hope is to make the choice between her deal and no deal.