Not everything can be foreseen. And one has to balance pros and cons, which will be different for different people.
If totally unforeseen events happen to produce bad results, then if a person or group was responsible, then we can blame them.
But if events that produce bad results were foreseen with due investigation by group A and dismissed without proper investigation by group B, and those events change the balance of pros and cons, then group B is at fault.
I think that the Leave campaign dismissed with the slogan "Project Fear" many concerns by the Remain campaign, and that we will see some of those concerns happen.
If a group deliberately tells a big lie or makes a grossly misleading statement that changes the balance of pros and cons, then that group is at fault.
The lie on the bus was clearly a very important factor. (See my post on 31-Jan-19 at 21:33 point 4.)
The greatly influential bus included "We send the EU £350m a week". The UK Statistics Authority said that is "not an amount of money that the UK pays to the EU each year", and its chair said it was "a clear misuse of official statistics".
£350 million per week = £350M x 365/7 per year = £18.2 billion per year.
According to HM Treasury European Union Finances 2017 figures (which differ from other sources), in 2017 the UK would pay the EU £18.6 billion, but would immediately get a rebate of £5.6 billion, and the EU paid £4 estimated billion on the UK public sector. Also the EU contributed to research grants (which in 2015 were estimated £1,5 billion) and to other private sector projects.
In 2017 the UK paid the EU less than £9 billion minus money received for research grants and other private sector projects (which I don't know how much). But that isn't the only money involved.
In monetary terms in 2017 the UK exported £616 billion of goods and services, of which £274 billion = 44% was to the EU, (including perhaps 2% via Rotterdam to outside the EU). 53% of our imports came through the EU.
Brexiteers would say that we can do a lot more trade outside the EU. 80% of UK exports are services, but some financial institutions will move their bases out of the UK.. For goods imports and exports outside the UK, such as to Africa and America, entails much higher transport costs and time,
So I suspect that in money terms the benefits of staying in the EU far exceed the costs. And some of our standards may be different.
There are also many other factors in favour of and against being in the EU.
My opening question was "If Brexit happens, and if its results are bad for the UK, then who will we blame, and who should we blame?" When I started the thread I hadn't worked out answers.
Now my answer to "who should we blame" is:-
- (c) Theresa May and (h) Michel Barnier et al for not producing a good enough deal for the UK. Although they would be to blame in the sense of being responsible, I wouldn't criticise them, because May has worked extremely hard and done her best and I doubt that Jeremy Corbyn et al would do better, and Barnier et al are trusted by the EU to act in the interests of the EU.
- (e) Jeremy Corbyn for not trying hard enough to present the Remain case to the electorate.
- (j) People who might cause strife in Northern Ireland, for not working for the common good.
- Most of all (m) Other than the above - especially the campaigners who should have emphasised the truth to the best of their knowledge and not told lies and dismissed truths.
It could be said that the Brexit voters are at fault. But I suspect that most were persuaded by the campaigners, and I don't expect all the voters to have the time and resources to do the investigations.
My answer to "who will we blame" is (c) Theresa May and (h) Michel Barnier et al.
I confess that I haven't investigated this in enough depth. I hope I'm wrong about bad results for the UK, and I'm always prepared to be corrected.
Considering Brexit is the most talked about subject I’ve heard in the past few years I’ve yet to hear more than one or two intelligent statements. Most people might just as well be giving opinions on splitting the atom.
Never ask Jeff a scientific question, or anything religious.
As you can judge what are and are not intelligent statements about Brexit, could you or your supporters please inform us which of my statements are not, and make a few intelligent statements about Brexit yourself.
If you do ask me such a question, you might receive an informed answer.
You might receive an informed answer
Ok I have asked this question before, but you did not answer.
Do you know anything about skin tags?
I had one near my thingy, instant party stopper it was.
But I studied and got rid.
I wrote "you might received an informed answer", not that you definitely would! But I have practically always responded to questions relating to what I have posted. My posts about science and religion also ask very relevant questions that people don't respond to, even though closely related to what they have posted.
When you mentioned skin tags, I had never heard of them, and I looked up what they were. But I couldn't, and still can't, see any relevance to the thread. Well done for studying it and solving the problem. On 11-Apr-18 the Daily Express had headline "Dr Pimple Popper removes giant skin tag that looks like a BRAIN", with photos. What an awful name to give someone!
A skint 'ag can mean a poor old woman, and bad economic decisions can make many more of them.
You would be surprised Jeff, at how often subjects are connected.
It is one of the reasons you go round the houses.
For instance from studying, I realized that official advice from NHS is incorrect..
For instance NHS say skin tags are nothing to worry about, not painful and cause no harm.
But by reading up, and from my own experience this is not correct.
If you have one in a sensitive area, then it is painful.
In my case I was getting regular groin strains before the tag even appeared.
When it was removed, no more strains.
The official NHS advice is basically just leave them alone.
Add into the mix, the NHS offer no treatment, you then have the outcome.
A sceptic would say the incorrect information is to stop people seeking treatment.
You could hardly say that they cause problems, then say the NHS does not offer any treatment.
So, A major organization giving out incorrect information to suit its own agenda.
Does that sound familiar?
"For instance NHS say skin tags are nothing to worry about, not painful and cause no harm.
But by reading up, and from my own experience this is not correct.
If you have one in a sensitive area, then it is painful. ...
The official NHS advice is basically just leave them alone. ...
Add into the mix, the NHS offer no treatment ...
A major organization giving out incorrect information"
I searched Google for skin tags NHS and an NHS website was first and includes:-
"Skin tags are small, soft, skin-coloured growths that hang off the skin and look a bit like warts.
They're very common, harmless, ...
Skin tags are harmless and don't usually cause pain or discomfort.
However, you may consider having skin tags removed if they're affecting your self-esteem, or if they snag on clothing or jewellery and bleed. You'll usually need to pay to have this done privately.
This is because skin tag removal is regarded as cosmetic surgery, which is rarely available through the NHS. Cosmetic surgery is usually only available on the NHS if the problem is affecting your physical or mental health.
Sometimes, skin tags fall off on their own if the tissue has twisted and died from a lack of blood supply. ...
Never attempt to remove large skin tags yourself because they'll bleed heavily."
I have emphasised the word "usually", which implies exceptions, so this website implies that they sometimes do cause pain and discomfort. This website also refers to bleeding if they snag on clothing or jewellery or if you remove it yourself. The bleeding might be harmful, but the skin tags are not harmful if left untouched. The NHS sometimes does do cosmetic surgery.
So I think that this NHS webpage is honest.
"to suit its own agenda."
The NHS's agenda is to do the best for people's health with its limited amount of money.
"A major organization giving out incorrect information to suit its own agenda.
Does that sound familiar?"
Yes. One piece of deliberately incorrect information that we are all familiar with and refers was by the Leave campaign bus "We send the EU £350m a week", which is still very widely believed. But see this thread on 31-Jan-19 at 21:33 section 4 and 05-Feb-19 at 22:57.
Can you please give examples (preferably with exact quotes and sources) that we can examine?
I can give examples of individuals giving out incorrect information (perhaps derived from output of major organisations) within one MSE thread "A SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL for all those who voted out" https://www.midsummerseve.com/fora/thread.aspx?threadid=191685&page=1:-
(a) Victoriana (not intentionally incorrect): "That's what he [Donald Tusk] said "all those who voted out, deserve a special place in hell"." - But see 06-Feb-19 at 14:54 and 06-Feb-19 at 19:16.
(b) NotHermit: "With Tusk it is the realization that the EU is all but finished. ... Lets not forget that the EU already, all but bankrupted some EU countries. I do not remember Tusk being any good with the Polish economy." - But see 06-Feb-19 at 19:16 and 06-Feb-19 at 21:13.
(c) SQL: "none of the EU hierarchy believe in democracy" - But see 13-Feb-19 at 21:59 and 16-Feb-19 at 16:15 and 18-Feb-19 at 20:34 section 1.b.
(d) SQL: "It is also reported that Tusk said "The EU is first and foremost a peace project." which is completely WRONG as the EU started out as the European Iron & Steel community - a trading community." - But see 13-Feb-19 at 21:59.
(e) SQL: "If any country within the EU ever votes not to agree one of the major treaties then that country is virtually forced to re-run the vote after a suitable 'education' intervention by Brussels." That suggests that the rerun involved no chaanges to the conditions. But see 16-Feb-19 at 16:08 and 18-Feb-19 at 20:34 section 2 and 18-Feb-19 at 21:08 section 3.
(f) SQL: "the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats that run the EU Commission and Council of Ministers" - But see 16-Feb-19 at 16:15. And elections involve accountability.
(g) NotHermit: "ACCOUNTS?" - But see 18-Feb-19 at 20:38.
(h) Barney: "Fat chance of that." (the EU changing) - But see 20-Feb-19 at 11:50.