Brexit: The Movie

[brightn'ove]

You chose to ignore those things which don't affirm what you believe. I have listened to the pro remain arguments, I want to understand both sides in order to form an opinion. If you only listen to one side, you can't make an informed decision.

Are you sure the the term climate change denier is accurate? Or do you mean man made climate change? The climate changes, never been in dispute, whether man causes the climate to change, that is in dispute. It's another subject, but the same thing applies. Try not to let your personal prejudices convince you to ignore one side of an argument, otherwise you will end up with an uninformed opinion, instead of an informed one, which is always infinately better.

You're making the assumption that I haven't made an informed decision on these things. I've read both brexit and remain literature, it's all targeted scare mongering bollocks. I'm making a decision based on what I believe is the right thing to do - not what anybody else tells me.

edit: it's also worth saying that I studied the European Union extensively whilst at university, both sides of the argument, so please don't tell me that I am not informed on the subject.

 

[dingodan]

You're making the assumption that I haven't made an informed decision on these things. I've read both brexit and remain literature, it's all targeted scare mongering bollocks. I'm making a decision based on what I believe is the right thing to do - not what anybody else tells me.

edit: it's also worth saying that I studied the European Union extensively whilst at university, both sides of the argument, so please don't tell me that I am not informed on the subject.

Well if all you have seen from both sides is "targeted scare mongering bollocks", how are you going to make an informed decision based on that?

Is the movie targeted scare mongering bollocks? You don't know because you refuse to watch it. (It's not).

 

[Hugo Rune]

I'm utilising the BBC 'reality check' site (which debunks arguments on both sides). Brexit: The Movie is a propaganda film full of half truths, spin and manipulated facts. If you are swayed & influenced by propaganda, it's well worth a watch.

 

[larus]

It's a propaganda film by a well-known climate change denier. No thanks.

Ever wondered why :
1. They use the term denier (with the links to the Nazi deniers from the war) rather than sceptic?
2. All adjustments which get made the the historical temperature datasets always make the past look colder. Never warmer. Bit odd to me, as by the law of averages some adjustments should be warmer.
3. Why has it changed from Global Warming to climate change?
4. Why do all of the models (I.e. Computer programs, which if you program a certain assumption in will produce those type of results) continually showing higher future warming and diverging from the recorded temperatures?
5. What's happened to A Gores predictions of an Ice Free Arctic? Hmm, gone quiet eh.
6. Hurricanes were forecast to increase. There's not been a major hurricane in the US for over 10 years.
7. Tornados were forecast to increase. Oh shit. That ain't happened either.
8. Antarctic sea ice is at it's highest recorded level. What, it's warming and we get more sea ice. It must be the wrong type of warming.
9. There was a hiatus in global temperature for 18 years, only broken be the last El Niño.

The sun is now going into a quieter phase and cycle 25 is forecast to be quiet too. A La Niña is kicking in, combined with the PDO and AMO, so we could be in for a cooling phase which will blow the whole climate change debate apart.

Yes, I'm sceptical, but based on reading and not listening to the main stream media.

 

[dingodan]

I'm utilising the BBC 'reality check' site (which debunks arguments on both sides). Brexit: The Movie is a propaganda film full of half truths, spin and manipulated facts. If you are swayed & influenced by propaganda, it's well worth a watch.

Well look, the BBC is in the unfortunate position of recieving large sums of money from the EU. Try to go to a source free from any compromising associations with the EU, that would be a start.

I wish instead of saying things like this, basically that you've chosen your experts to listen to well, I wish you would come here and say, - The movies states "X,Y,Z". This is false, because :"A, B, C". At least that would be an intellectualy sincere discussion. My expert is better than your expert is no real discussion at all.

I have yet to hear one person come here and point to something in the film which is untrue or misleading, genuinely I would welcome that.

 

[GreersElbow]

Have you watched the film?

I don't think there is a single thing said in the film which could or would be argued against. That's why I think people should watch it.

You've done the typical response by deflecting the original question. Did you take it at face value or independently search for sources to confirm what was said.

 

[dingodan]

You've done the typical response by deflecting the original question. Did you take it at face value or independently search for sources to confirm what was said.

This is kind of why you need to watch it. It's not really a film full of assertions about the future, or quesionable figures. It has a different approach to most of the debate we have seen so far, again the reason why I think people should watch it.

If it were a film with questionable figures and disputed facts and ideas we would probably have had someone post about those "claims" already. But nothing in the film is really in dispute as far as I can tell. (I did double check the trading success of Chile and Switzerland, but more out of curiousity than because it seemed questionable).

The thing is the film is not politics as usual, it's not political spin. It's quite unique in the context of this debate, because it doesn't try to convince you of anything really, it is more about offering a perspective about the situation. It's actually pretty refreshing.

But please don't take my word for it. Infact in the context of this debate, what I am claiming about the film is pretty outrageous.

Surely it can't be a spin-free, objective and indisputable? See for yourself.

 

[TheJasperCo]

Talk to a London cabbie about Boris, see if they agree.

Uber or black cab driver?

 

[Easy 10]

Interesting film. And for me, one of the most interesting things about it is the fact that in presenting its case for Brexit, not ONCE is the matter of immigration brought up. The arguments are built entirely around economic, trade and bureaucratic factors that affect us all by shackling ourselves to the unelected, unaccountable, cumbersome cartel that is the EU.

Immigration will likely be the single biggest factor driving most people to vote for Brexit. Yet there are so many factors outside of that one issue which are equally worthy of scrutiny, so it was refreshing to see a programme focussing on those other issues for once.

 

[dingodan]

Interesting film. And for me, one of the most interesting things about it is the fact that in presenting its case for Brexit, not ONCE is the matter of immigration brought up. The arguments are built entirely around economic, trade and bureaucratic factors that affect us by shackling ourselves to the unelected, unaccountable, cumbersome cartel that is the EU.

Immigration will likely be the single biggest factor driving most people to vote for Brexit. Yet there are so many factors outside of that one issue which are equally worthy of scrutiny, so it was refreshing to see a programme focussing on those other issues for once.

Exactly, it goes into detail about how protectionist and economically backwards the EU is, and there is also a large emphasis on democracy and accountability, which for me is really what this is all about.

 

[Nixonator]

Very interesting movie, didn't think i'd get through all 1 hour and 10 minutes of it but glad I did.

 

[osgood]

Very interesting movie, didn't think i'd get through all 1 hour and 10 minutes of it but glad I did.

A "must watch " if you are undeciced !

 

[NooBHA]

Have you watched the film?

I don't think there is a single thing said in the film which could or would be argued against. That's why I think people should watch it.

Watched it and it is all 100% true and I am in the '' IN camp'' - Even after watching it and agreeing with it I am still in the ''IN camp'' and here is why

Take for example the part where the EU has put up trade barriers to the rest of the world . Yes it has done and yes it costs the average household in the UK More money to buy its food. However, on the flip side, it has helped protect UK jobs for people who work for companies which may well have gone to the wall. In that instance people would have lost their jobs and the household they live in would have no money to pay for any good, let alone inflated priced goods.

Then move on to all the extra legislation it has brought in YES I agree a lot of it is not necessary but it has also brought in a lot of good legislation that has protected workers from being taken advantage of by employers. Just ask Mike Ashley and his staff at Sports Direct.

Legislation has also been brought in to protect the elderly, minority racial groups and on sexual orientation and not to mention children who in the past may have been vulnerable to be physically beaten by their own parents or families.

And finally on the part they go on about in the regulation of the standard of goods. That film complains about all the regulation on goods we consume. Yes of course it has but I would rather have that than buy an iron or a cooker of a fridge which goes on fire when you use it. Or even worse, use a toothpaste which perhaps contains a substance which could long term cause cancerous ulcers in my mouth

SO YES THE FILM IS ALL TRUE - BUT IT ONLY SHOWED YOU ONE SIDE OF THE NET OF THE TENNIS MATCH

 

[El Presidente]

But please don't take my word for it. Infact in the context of this debate, what I am claiming about the film is pretty outrageous.

Surely it can't be a spin-free, objective and indisputable? See for yourself.

I thought it was far better than the embarrassing claims and counter-claims put forward by both parties of the official campaigns.

However I didn't think it was:

(a) Spin free, as the producers had an agenda
(b) Objective, as the figures shown were selective and aimed at only showing the benefits of Brexit

 

[B-right-on]

Full of facts that defy belief, like 10,000 people in the EU Commission are paid more than the UK Prme Minister more than 1 on 5 who work for the EU. Thats my Tax money!!

 

[dingodan]

I thought it was far better than the embarrassing claims and counter-claims put forward by both parties of the official campaigns.

However I didn't think it was:

(a) Spin free, as the producers had an agenda
(b) Objective, as the figures shown were selective and aimed at only showing the benefits of Brexit

Is there anything in there you would qualify as political spin? I genuinely couldn't see anything like that myself.

Is there anything in there you would qualify as subjective, rather than objective? Again, same.

I'm open to the suggestion that there was some spin or some subjectivity in there, but I when watch it I genuinely can't think of any examples, and so far in this discussion none have been specifically identified.

 

[NooBHA]

Is there anything in there you would qualify as political spin? I genuinely couldn't see anything like that myself.

All of it
Is there anything in there you would qualify as subjective, rather than objective? Again, same.

All of it

I'm open to the suggestion that there was some spin or some subjectivity in there, but I when watch it I genuinely can't think of any examples, and so far in this discussion none have been specifically identified.

See points raised in post # 33 - The programme was 100% fact and I concede that but it only looked at the negativity of the European Parliament. It did not produce any of the positive points whatsoever.

 

[El Presidente]

Is there anything in there you would qualify as political spin? I genuinely couldn't see anything like that myself.

Is there anything in there you would qualify as subjective, rather than objective? Again, same.

I'm open to the suggestion that there was some spin or some subjectivity in there, but I when I watch it I genuinely can't think of any examples, and so far in this discussion none have been specifically identified.

If it was objective it would have shown the economic merits and demerits of the argument. 'Good' information, as defined in the world of analysis which I have the misfortune to be associated, has the following characteristics

1. Completeness (adequate or full disclosure of all necessary information),
2. Neutrality (fairness and freedom from bias)
3. Free from error (no inaccuracies and omissions).
4: Predictive value (helps users in predicting or anticipating future outcomes)
5: Confirmatory value (enables users to check and confirm earlier predictions or evaluations)

If I was, for example, making a film about Crystal Palace, I could easily include issues such as

This would suit my agenda, which is that Palace are a bunch of embarrassing muppets, but it would not be complete.

 

[dingodan]

Watched it and it is all 100% true and I am in the '' IN camp'' - Even after watching it and agreeing with it I am still in the ''IN camp'' and here is why

Take for example the part where the EU has put up trade barriers to the rest of the world . Yes it has done and yes it costs the average household in the UK More money to buy its food. However, on the flip side, it has helped protect UK jobs for people who work for companies which may well have gone to the wall. In that instance people would have lost their jobs and the household they live in would have no money to pay for any good, let alone inflated priced goods.

Then move on to all the extra legislation it has brought in YES I agree a lot of it is not necessary but it has also brought in a lot of good legislation that has protected workers from being taken advantage of by employers. Just ask Mike Ashley and his staff at Sports Direct.

Legislation has also been brought in to protect the elderly, minority racial groups and on sexual orientation and not to mention children who in the past may have been vulnerable to be physically beaten by their own parents or families.

And finally on the part they go on about in the regulation of the standard of goods. That film complains about all the regulation on goods we consume. Yes of course it has but I would rather have that than buy an iron or a cooker of a fridge which goes on fire when you use it. Or even worse, use a toothpaste which perhaps contains a substance which could long term cause cancerous ulcers in my mouth

SO YES THE FILM IS ALL TRUE - BUT IT ONLY SHOWED YOU ONE SIDE OF THE NET OF THE TENNIS MATCH

On your first point, what you are talking about here is protectionism. Protectionism is generally accepted as being very bad economics. As you point out, ordinary people are forced to pay more money for goods and services, and often inferior goods and services. This negatively impacts on the consumer. But let's say for a second that while it negatively impacts the consumer (and the poor consumer most of all), it also helps the producer. But does it really? The producer when faced with a competitive market is forced to do things differently. Either improve it's product, or find another way of being productive. This is how you achieve a dynamic, flexible and inventive enconomy. If a producer can simply take a commissioner out for a champagne dinner and lobby for protectionist policies then they avoid the incentive to improve. Did you see in the film the mountains of food being destroyed in order to keep prices high to protect the European producer? The waste becomes two-fold, first you have destroyed perfectly good produce which could have gone to the consumer and saved them money, second, you have denied the producer the incentive and opportunity to use their energy to create something else or something better.

You mention saving those producers jobs, and that is quite visible. But consider the invisible, those people who never get a job which they may otherwise have got because a business is having to import a product at a higher price than they would otherwise have had too. That business has higher costs, meaning they can employ less people. But because those jobs are never created in the first place you only see the existing jobs which might be lost without protectionism, you miss those jobs which can never be created because of it.

Taking again the destruction of vast amounts of food, you can argue that this is benificial to the economy, because now more food must be produced, employing people and generating wealth. But it's a fallacy (similar to what's called the broken window fallacy) because now you have destroyed a product which could have otherwise been used, and you have wasted the resources needed to remake the product, which could have been used productively to create something additional to the products which you destroyed. So you end up losing twice.

The other part of your point, protecting the elderly, minorities, employees etc, well two points on that. First your point is only valid if you believe that we cannot protect those things ourselves. Second, assuming that you do believe that we would not protect those things ourselves, you would have to also believe that the EU will protect them forever. I think most people believe those things should be protected, for sure. So what will best protect them? In a system of accountability you can always rely on the prevailing attitudes of the people to decide. In an unaccountable system you can always rely on the prevailing attitudes of the powerful to decide. So the question is, who do you trust to protect these important things. Who do you trust to, in the long term, have the interests of minorities, women, workers at heart? The people, or the powerful? What the EU gives the EU can take away. Consider a time in which the attitudes of the EU Commission are different, consider a time in which the EU Commission decides to weaken those rights. There will be no recourse. Change cannot be effected. Consider the idea (which you seem to hold) that our democracy might decide to weaken those riights. There is recourse. Change can be effected.

On your last point, again, you would have to believe that we would not have standards for products without the EU. Explosive toothpaste would hit the shelves if we didn't have rules created by the EU? It really isn't the case. You also have to bear in mind that the majority of regulations created by the EU are not created with the welbeing of the consumer in mind, otherwise we would not have more expensive products chosen at the expense of cheaper ones which must be destroyed. Regulations are made with the interests of producers (or rather lobbyists) in mind. Big business loves EU regulation because their armies of lawyers and compliance departments are able to handle the regulations, which largely they helped to construct, while a small business struggles to comply. Again, as with other forms of protectionism, the aim here is not to protect the consumer, it is to protect the producer, in this case from competition. Competition which, if embraced rather than feared, would lead to better goods and lower prices. Those things which actually benefit consumers, particularly the poorest consumers.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

Competition which, if embraced rather than feared, would lead to better goods and lower prices. Those things which actually benefit consumers, particularly the poorest consumers.

More jam sales for me