Getting people to vote against themselves (Politics)

[Wile E. Coyote]

The Logic of one side being unable to negotiate (and by vetoing a deal and a no deal scenario, you confirm this) is always there will be No Deal, regardless of what the interested parties hope for.

A creative solution to an impasse is only possible when both sides can meaningfully negotiate

[Mick Harper]

This may be true but how is it relevant to the present situation? As the EU keeps pointing out with increasing exasperation, there is nobody on the other side of the table! The doubtful coves that show up from time to time agree something but that never gets ratified. Nor can anything they agree ever be ratified because the doubtful coves are opposed in Parliament on a semi-permanent basis by a) the ERG and b) the Labour Party and the doubtful coves have agreed in advance not to proceed without the agreement of Parliament.

As I pointed out at the time, and as I urge them to consider once again on March 28th, they don't need Parliamentary approval. Just sign the damn agreement under normal prerogative powers the way every international agreement is in this country and always has been. The UK leaves the EU in an orderly fashion (and entirely constitutionally) and we all get down to two years of negotiation about our future trading relationships. Parliament might be outraged, the government will have to apologise for breaking their undertaking to it, but everybody in the whole wide word (including every Parliamentarian) will understand why they were forced to do it and why it was wise of them to do it.

Dear HMG, there's no charge for this advice since you will never get to hear about it and it will certainly never occur unprompted to a bunch of dotards such as yourselves. Scaredy cats too. But remember, the country will be right behind you.

[Grant]

[Mick Harper]

You are potty, Grant. Not about the final outcome, that is as you say and as AE says, unknowable. But getting what you asked for. You say you want protectionism -- that's fine. But it is the EU that is protectionist, the world outside plays by WTO Rules ie protectionism is outlawed except in certain circumstances, none of which apply to us. Or by bilateral agreement and you will find, you poor dolt, that having the EU on your side of the table makes for better bilateral than not having it. It's gonna be even worse if the EU is hovering around saying to the guy on the other side, "Whatever you give them, remember..."

But the fun bit is probably right. I find I need a Brexit fix now that my Stormy has gone to a better place.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I am starting to get this. We are eliminating possible scenarios (tonight a second ref) on the basis that the remaining scenario, however unlikely, is likely to fit the bill.

This worked for that genius they now call Sherlock (he used to be called Holmes).

Will it work for the current congregation of MPs?

Hmmm?

[Mick Harper]

In theory people disagree with you either because they are a lot smarter than you or because you are a lot smarter than them. So what you have to work out is why twenty million people disagree with you over Brexit. Although the various issues are difficult, perhaps impossible, to compute this presumably applies to you as well as to the twenty million. So, if you wish to be a good little Applied Epistemologist, you have to account for this state of affairs. Begin.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Don't know. I am really bemused why anyone thinks that Brexit is that important.

Mostly it should be about arguing about the so called 4 "freedoms" within Europe, and the restrictions of those freedoms to nations outside Europe. Do we want to be part of that block and (logically) currency.

1)Free movement of goods
2)Free movement of people
3)Free movement of services
4)Free movement of capital

Yet it now is about.

1)Democracy
2)Immigration
3)Populism
4)Fascism
5)President Trump
6)Racism
7)A new war in Ireland
8)Scottish independence.
9)The end of the world...........

[Mick Harper]

Yes, I'm sure this is all true, Wiley, and I'm sure Brexit is not very important. But that is not the purpose of this (very important) exercise. You have been asked to account for why you disagree with twenty million people about Brexit.

I'll remind you about the parameters. Are you smarter than them, or are they smarter than you, or is there some other reason? Begin. Again.

[Mick Harper]

Anyway, while you're contemplating this final step in your initiation, I will sing the AEL school song

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you

[Mick Harper]

Well. I can't say I'm surprised at your silence, or perhaps I should say your pusillanimity. The argument is quite a straightforward one

1. Irrespective of what you think of the general mental capacity of your opponents there must be at least some of them who are as smart as you are.
2. Unless these individuals can be eliminated for one of these 'other reasons' it seems you can't be right just because you're smarter than they are.
3. But you have to eliminate them all if you are to avoid the 'separated twin problem'.
4. This, for those of who you have forgotten, is your genetic clone brought up in identical but parallel circumstances to you but who finds him/herself on the other side of the argument.

This is the critical moment. Your only recourse now is to argue -- as most people do in this kind of situation -- "I cannot conceive that anyone who knows what I know, who has my reasoning power, who is not prey to any special interest, who has the moral fibre that I have etc etc (add as necessary) could possibly not come to the same conclusion as I have. .

Once you have reached that point you can safely conclude that it has nothing to do with smartness just 'other factors' and since you now know these are nothing special, just a dreary collection of subcultural norms, not of your making, you can jettison your own position. What you do now is finally up to you and you alone.

[Irefuse]

I'm shocked to arrive here, read through this topic, and seemingly find that everyone has looked straight through reality with their 80s red/blue 3d glasses.

There is no interest in policy from politicians. Policy is simply window dressing for the sweat shop behind the store front. Perhaps this is more visible on a local level because the politician hasn't advanced far enough to quit their day job but it's very easy to see what business interest they represent at a local level.

Sure, they'll carry a 2a or gun control bill, have it fail and return to their locality to proclaim that the dastardly other guys thwarted their virtuous endeavour yet again!

Meanwhile, in committees they got their friend a contract for this, their uncle that and so on. Not directly of course. They have dancing partners.

On the issues, blue team owners own planned parenthood. Red team owners own the missile manufacturing plant. So they do care, but only about profit.

Dumb red voters get fed "free market" propaganda, of course the red owners own everything in that "free market" and will use their power to free market your ass right out their region using the local or state government that they own.

Dumb blue voters get fed "caring" propaganda but of course the blue owners own the hospital that provides the "free" healthcare and they oversee the welfare programs which are actually black holes for money.

[Pete Jones]

I don't know much about my own local politics though I guess I assume it's identical to national politics, just on a smaller, pettier scale

[Mick Harper]

[Pete Jones]

2A = second amendment, right to bear arms. My neighbor's license plate reads "2A OG," or "second amendment original gangster."

[Mick Harper]