Robin Hood wrote:When this referendum result was known there were those, on this forum, preaching the usual doom scenario for those UK citizens ...
The classic example of 'false logic' goes along the lines of 'all avenues have trees lining them therefore all roads with trees lining them must be avenues'. It seem to make logical sense at first glance but it is just wrong. False logic.
Some leavers have made wrong predictions and made them with an agenda of 'project fear' therefore all predictions from any leaver must be wrong and made with an agenda of 'project fear'. It is false logic.
I have no problem with common sense. Let it tell you what ever you want. But apply that common sense based on a correct understanding of reality not on fiction. Make any decision you like but do it based on things that are true and not things that are not. Try not to let that be shaped by your false logic that says , because some who voted remain have made predictions, motivated by trying to scare people, that have been shown to be untrue , there fore anything else anything any remainer (including the ones that did NOT make this wrong prediction at all) must therefore be be wrong and the leaver must be motivated by trying to scare people.
I am not trying to scare you. I am not trying to stop Brexit. I am trying my utmost best to try and help you (and therefore me as well) make sure your (and my) judgement is based on the best possible understanding of reality that we can mutually discover and reach using our combined skills.
You kept stating that 'no deal' exit was misnamed , should be called a 'wto exit', that such a 'WTO exit' was the equivalent and alternative to all the other forms of exit and that all this naming it 'no deal' exit was just nonsense. That WTO exit = we leave with some prior agreement / deal in place , all other forms of exit = we leave with some form of prior agreement in place too. Thus they are equivalent. This is just WRONG, thinking it is WRONG and thus, no matter how much you apply your common sense you are likely to come up with a wrong , common sense, conclusion. A 'WTO exit' as you like to call it, is NOT equivalent to any other form of exit that includes an agreed transition period with the EU. If you came back to me and said "yep I get that but I think the consequences of that difference in my view will not be that bad" then fine. You are not doing that. You are saying to me there IS no difference between these things. That they ARE equivalent. This is just wrong. I am putting all this effort in to trying to explain as clearly as I can why this idea of equivalence is wrong because I want you to be able to apply your common sense and make best personal judgements about the future based on a correct understanding of this not an incorrect one. I do not give a fuck what conclusion you want to draw that are based on a correct understanding of how equivalent a WTO exit is vs all the other types of exit. I just do not want you to base your conclusions based on an INCORRECT understanding of how equivalent a WTO exit it to other forms of exit.
WTO deal / exit - In this case the default position on what happens from day one with regard to trade in goods (and only this) is that there are pre defined limits on what levels of tarrifs can be imposed , by the Uk and by anyone trading with us (that is WTO member). that are all already agreed and signed. On all other things about us leaving subject to legal agreements between the UK and other parties , the default position from day one is these agreements end, all on exactly the same day and will need to be replaced.
All other forms of exit - In this case from day one on everything, trade in goods, trade in services and everything else (open sky agreements, agreements about security and countless other agreements) the default position is 'everything stays exactly the same as before exit' for up to 2 years whilst we negotiate and sign the new agreements we need to replace them.
There is a fucking difference. This difference exists, what ever my motivations might be for trying to get you to understand there is such a difference, it still exits. Say to me yeah I get it I understand there is a difference and what it is but I do not agree with you as to what the consequence of this difference is or might be in the future, then I will shut the fuck up about this. Keep coming back to me and insisting there is NO difference at all, then how can I come to any conclusion other than you are and want to deny reality in order that you application of common sense will be skewed in favour of what you want to believe ? Keep saying that anyone that says there is a difference (me) is lying with intent just to trick people and that your common sense tells you they must be doing this, seeking to lie, based on the FALSE logic that if other leavers have lied or exaggerated things to trick people, therefore all leavers must be doing this. Keep doing these kind of things , rather than acknowledged that there IS a difference and I will keep thinking 'this is sheer and utter fucking madness'
Robin Hood wrote:Don’t forget in your scenario that the UK also has airspace? As I said “Two can play at that game!’ ......
Did you even read my hypothetical ? Does in not explicitly acknowledge the above ? What is more it is by design 'a worse case possible scenario'. Not because I am playing project fear. It is a worst case because I want you to understand there is a difference between a 'WTO exit' and other forms of exit. To make the point that in wto exit scenario this could whatever the odds it will are and in other forms of exit it just can not happen at all. Given that in my attempt to offer a worst possible case hypothetical (not for the reason you think I am doing so but for the reason I have stated) I still did NOT 'forget the UK also has airspace'. I in fact explicitly acknowledged such. What then should my common sense tell me about what the fuck is going on here, when you just respond with 'don t forget the UK has airspace' ?
Robin Hood wrote:IMO: What you are saying is all hypothesis with a virtually zero consideration for pragmatism or common sense.
Think what you like about these probabilities. Think what you like about what my motivations for presenting this hypothetical. None of that changes the simple plain fact that with a wto exit they are possible whatever the probability they will and with other forms of exit they are just not possible at all. That there is just no 'probability guessing' involved at all. All whilst insisting that there is 'equivalence' between these different types of exit.
Robin Hood wrote:So, I will not panic ..... I will take some sensible measures ...... and see what happens because one thing is for sure, I am not alone.
I am not asking you to panic. I am asking you to make your best judgement on 'is a wto exit equivalent to other forms of exit or not'. To do so not on the basis of what you want, what I want or anyone else wants but on the basis of actually looking at the facts. On the basis of trying to consider what I am saying re equivalence' and not on the basis of just dismissing it out of hand, because I am a remainer , or any other excuse.
