I've not denigrated anybody as stupid or racist. I don't need to as the points I make either stand up or fall on their merits when challenged.
My point is that the petition is now going up at the rate of 100,000 per hour and the people are very motivated.
A week is a long time in politics so who knows where we will be in August?!
Well it should get at least 16,141,241 signatures, otherwise it's less than have already voted to remain.
I wouldn't sign it though. Cheesed off as I am at what I see as a retrograde step, I accept the result. I also reserve the right to be pissed off about it. So there... (Smiley with its tongue out...)
This country is tired of experts - are you seriously telling me that experts know better?
Yeah, sod those heart surgeons I'm having my triple bypass done by the bloke next door. After all, the people tired of experts obviously had their brains removed by him.
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
Isn't everybody a professional? As in the roadsweeper did a very professional job? It looks to me that everybody who gets paid for something can be described as professional.
It's seems like some people believe in democracy, until they find themselves in the minority.
So standard disclaimer, I'm a Communist, at no point do I call myself a "Democratic Socialist" and I'm not a big fan of democracy.*
The thing about democracy is that it's not permanent, you're not voting for Monarchical options.
I'm not saying now is the time for a re-vote, but to say "Article 50 must be enacted now, and any new Government MUST do it" is, I think, shortsighted.
There will be another general election in the fall, by which point the early impacts of Brexit will be seen. It may well be that the pound and FTSE remain where they are for a bit, then slowly start to recover. It could be that by that time Britain has been thrown back into a recession. At which point, the electorate would have every right to say "this is not what we signed up for," or, "we were promised something else," or "The EU is shit, but it's better than the alternative." That would be an evolution of thought given more information.
It is of course also possible that center-right Tories and Labour MPs who campaigned to stay are kicked out of office for being wrong, as it is seen that Britain is better separated from the EU.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy, it's what separated it from that which came before.
*These comments are meant largely tongue-in-cheek
You make some good points, tongue-in-cheek or not.
I believe that democracy is generally a good thing, the will of the people and all that. I also believe that something as important as leaving the EU probably should have been decided on more than a 52%-48% vote. But we could have had endless debates on the exact ratio required, 55/45?, 60/40?, 70/30? Should we count it as a percentage of votes cast or of eligible voters?
In the end, it was a majority vote and the majority has spoken. Democracy rules, for better or worse.
Right, and all that I would add is that democracy rules for now.
Here in the states we have term limits for president and various other heads of individual states (Governors for example). It is to ensure a continuity of democracy, at least in theory.
Where this of course can fail is for large, long term, interdependent decisions, such as we've seen this week. I'm still firmly in the "eh, everything's negotiable" camp, but I understand why those who voted out think that is unfair.
I empathize with those who are saying they wish this was handled by representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Something so complex with so many permutations and such a potential global fall out is something where you would *hope* to consult people who do this for a living, and hope that they play with a straight bat in outlining the benefits and potential pitfalls.
My biggest regret about this election is less-so the result, and moreso that it became a referendum on "financial experts and political elite." I wholeheartedly endorse such distrust in those groups, but this was arguably the worst election possible with which to deliver them a mandate.
I also agree that a 52/48 margin for such a large decision feels incredibly thin, but as you said, what's the right level then?
I would say you need 67/33 (2:1) vote to change the status quo if you just count those voting.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
I've not denigrated anybody as stupid or racist. I don't need to as the points I make either stand up or fall on their merits when challenged.
My point is that the petition is now going up at the rate of 100,000 per hour and the people are very motivated.
A week is a long time in politics so who knows where we will be in August?!
but who is it voting. they had to remove 80,000 votes yesterday as they were either fictitious, votes from overseas or those ineligible to actually vote.
I've not denigrated anybody as stupid or racist. I don't need to as the points I make either stand up or fall on their merits when challenged.
My point is that the petition is now going up at the rate of 100,000 per hour and the people are very motivated.
A week is a long time in politics so who knows where we will be in August?!
but who is it voting. they had to remove 80,000 votes yesterday as they were either fictitious, votes from overseas or those ineligible to actually vote.
How can you have a majority vote in a situation like this though.
Means that the Remain side would pretty much always have a 2/1 chance of winning the vote
It's not about winning. It's about making the right decisions for the country. For a decision that could be based on very few facts with such far reaching and long term effects it is just plain stupid to do it on simple majority basis. The Premier League require 14/20 majority, the justice system requires a 10/2 minimum. Should how good the respective campaigns were run dictate our future in this way ?
I've not denigrated anybody as stupid or racist. I don't need to as the points I make either stand up or fall on their merits when challenged.
My point is that the petition is now going up at the rate of 100,000 per hour and the people are very motivated.
A week is a long time in politics so who knows where we will be in August?!
but who is it voting. they had to remove 80,000 votes yesterday as they were either fictitious, votes from overseas or those ineligible to actually vote.
I've not denigrated anybody as stupid or racist. I don't need to as the points I make either stand up or fall on their merits when challenged.
My point is that the petition is now going up at the rate of 100,000 per hour and the people are very motivated.
A week is a long time in politics so who knows where we will be in August?!
but who is it voting. they had to remove 80,000 votes yesterday as they were either fictitious, votes from overseas or those ineligible to actually vote.
But they were removed. So what ?
Well for one it shows the integrity of the petition. This is the UK not Uganda!
This country is tired of experts - are you seriously telling me that experts know better?
Yeah, sod those heart surgeons I'm having my triple bypass done by the bloke next door. After all, the people tired of experts obviously had their brains removed by him.
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
I am fairly sure that a heart surgeon would be considered an expert.
And the references to experts relate to Mr Gove's dismissal of the overwhelming body of expert (by with I mean not just professional, but at the top of their field) opinion, because it did not accord with his own.
Except that the broken brexit promises and general fuckup-ery won't become clear until we have actually left and it will be too late if people decide that they were sold a pup and want to go back.
Well we've already had one major broken promise on the NHS funding.
If you believed promises from people who can't deliver them then more fool you.
This country is tired of experts - are you seriously telling me that experts know better?
Yeah, sod those heart surgeons I'm having my triple bypass done by the bloke next door. After all, the people tired of experts obviously had their brains removed by him.
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
You don't think a heart surgeon has expertise, is an expert in his field? The quote "This country is tired of experts" was not I think aimed at 'experts' on this forum who think they know about football. I think it is part of a general dumbing down of the population - "Don't listen to people who know anything - they're just coming on all superior and are really just trying to make us feel stupid." I think it is foolish of people to ignore the comments of people who have studied a long time in their field, even if they need to examine those statements closely before accepting them.
"This country is sick of experts" is probably the most depressing thing a politician in the country has ever uttered. That he then went on to win 52% of the vote is just as bad.
It's seems like some people believe in democracy, until they find themselves in the minority.
So standard disclaimer, I'm a Communist, at no point do I call myself a "Democratic Socialist" and I'm not a big fan of democracy.*
The thing about democracy is that it's not permanent, you're not voting for Monarchical options.
I'm not saying now is the time for a re-vote, but to say "Article 50 must be enacted now, and any new Government MUST do it" is, I think, shortsighted.
There will be another general election in the fall, by which point the early impacts of Brexit will be seen. It may well be that the pound and FTSE remain where they are for a bit, then slowly start to recover. It could be that by that time Britain has been thrown back into a recession. At which point, the electorate would have every right to say "this is not what we signed up for," or, "we were promised something else," or "The EU is shit, but it's better than the alternative." That would be an evolution of thought given more information.
It is of course also possible that center-right Tories and Labour MPs who campaigned to stay are kicked out of office for being wrong, as it is seen that Britain is better separated from the EU.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy, it's what separated it from that which came before.
*These comments are meant largely tongue-in-cheek
You make some good points, tongue-in-cheek or not.
I believe that democracy is generally a good thing, the will of the people and all that. I also believe that something as important as leaving the EU probably should have been decided on more than a 52%-48% vote. But we could have had endless debates on the exact ratio required, 55/45?, 60/40?, 70/30? Should we count it as a percentage of votes cast or of eligible voters?
In the end, it was a majority vote and the majority has spoken. Democracy rules, for better or worse.
Right, and all that I would add is that democracy rules for now.
Here in the states we have term limits for president and various other heads of individual states (Governors for example). It is to ensure a continuity of democracy, at least in theory.
Where this of course can fail is for large, long term, interdependent decisions, such as we've seen this week. I'm still firmly in the "eh, everything's negotiable" camp, but I understand why those who voted out think that is unfair.
I empathize with those who are saying they wish this was handled by representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Something so complex with so many permutations and such a potential global fall out is something where you would *hope* to consult people who do this for a living, and hope that they play with a straight bat in outlining the benefits and potential pitfalls.
My biggest regret about this election is less-so the result, and moreso that it became a referendum on "financial experts and political elite." I wholeheartedly endorse such distrust in those groups, but this was arguably the worst election possible with which to deliver them a mandate.
I also agree that a 52/48 margin for such a large decision feels incredibly thin, but as you said, what's the right level then?
I would say you need 67/33 (2:1) vote to change the status quo if you just count those voting.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
And would the same 67/33 (2:1) be required to keep us within The EU?
While I don't 100% agree with Gove, I do understand his point to an extent
Some forms of expertise enable you to do things, or predict based on scientific/technical expertise and previous experience/history, e.g. surgeons, plumbers
When it comes to economic expertise, predicting outcomes is far less certain. The old joke about asking 100 economists and getting 100 different answers is partially true, as there are no right or wrong answers, and it entirely depends on your assumptions and view of how markets and economies work. None of the main economic experts predicted the 2008 financial meltdown, for example.
I think the weather is a better parallel. Forecasting is not something any old Joe can do, and they are often wrong - mostly a bit, occasionally spectactularly so (1987 hurricane). As a result some people might choose to ignore weather forecasts... Personally I'll continue to listen to these experts...
I think the weather is a better parallel. Forecasting is not something any old Joe can do, and they are often wrong - mostly a bit, occasionally spectactularly so (1987 hurricane). As a result some people might choose to ignore weather forecasts... Personally I'll continue to listen to these experts...
Weather forecasting is a LOT more accurate these days than economic forecasting
You can see that from the government's own forecasts
While I don't 100% agree with Gove, I do understand his point to an extent
Some forms of expertise enable you to do things, or predict based on scientific/technical expertise and previous experience/history, e.g. surgeons, plumbers
When it comes to economic expertise, predicting outcomes is far less certain. The old joke about asking 100 economists and getting 100 different answers is partially true, as there are no right or wrong answers, and it entirely depends on your assumptions and view of how markets and economies work. None of the main economic experts predicted the 2008 financial meltdown, for example.
Dozens of economists predicted the financial crash of 2008. Most of them weren't listened to, because the politics of free-market capitalism dictate that those who hold opposing views are ridiculed and derided, in much the same way that communism demands that those who don't toe the party line are marginalised/disappeared or killed
Large-scale economic systems can only really 'work' if a huge number of people are kept in the dark about them, simply because they all involve lying to people on a grand scale
While I don't 100% agree with Gove, I do understand his point to an extent
Some forms of expertise enable you to do things, or predict based on scientific/technical expertise and previous experience/history, e.g. surgeons, plumbers
When it comes to economic expertise, predicting outcomes is far less certain. The old joke about asking 100 economists and getting 100 different answers is partially true, as there are no right or wrong answers, and it entirely depends on your assumptions and view of how markets and economies work. None of the main economic experts predicted the 2008 financial meltdown, for example.
Dozens of economists predicted the financial crash of 2008. Most of them weren't listened to, because the politics of free-market capitalism dictate that those who hold opposing views are ridiculed and derided, in much the same way that communism demands that those who don't toe the party line are marginalised/disappeared or killed
Large-scale economic systems can only really 'work' if a huge number of people are kept in the dark about them, simply because they all involve lying to people on a grand scale
An excellent point, and this is where my "kill you gurus" thinking comes in. Yes, by all means, distrust financial experts. Distrust financial systems. But in doing so, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. look to find others who study these subjects but have differing opinions.
I would add Krugman (I think) to the list of those who predicted it, as well as a personal favorite of mine, Prof. Richard D. Wolff who is a critic of Capitalism.
This country is tired of experts - are you seriously telling me that experts know better?
Yeah, sod those heart surgeons I'm having my triple bypass done by the bloke next door. After all, the people tired of experts obviously had their brains removed by him.
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
It's seems like some people believe in democracy, until they find themselves in the minority.
So standard disclaimer, I'm a Communist, at no point do I call myself a "Democratic Socialist" and I'm not a big fan of democracy.*
The thing about democracy is that it's not permanent, you're not voting for Monarchical options.
I'm not saying now is the time for a re-vote, but to say "Article 50 must be enacted now, and any new Government MUST do it" is, I think, shortsighted.
There will be another general election in the fall, by which point the early impacts of Brexit will be seen. It may well be that the pound and FTSE remain where they are for a bit, then slowly start to recover. It could be that by that time Britain has been thrown back into a recession. At which point, the electorate would have every right to say "this is not what we signed up for," or, "we were promised something else," or "The EU is shit, but it's better than the alternative." That would be an evolution of thought given more information.
It is of course also possible that center-right Tories and Labour MPs who campaigned to stay are kicked out of office for being wrong, as it is seen that Britain is better separated from the EU.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy, it's what separated it from that which came before.
*These comments are meant largely tongue-in-cheek
You make some good points, tongue-in-cheek or not.
I believe that democracy is generally a good thing, the will of the people and all that. I also believe that something as important as leaving the EU probably should have been decided on more than a 52%-48% vote. But we could have had endless debates on the exact ratio required, 55/45?, 60/40?, 70/30? Should we count it as a percentage of votes cast or of eligible voters?
In the end, it was a majority vote and the majority has spoken. Democracy rules, for better or worse.
Right, and all that I would add is that democracy rules for now.
Here in the states we have term limits for president and various other heads of individual states (Governors for example). It is to ensure a continuity of democracy, at least in theory.
Where this of course can fail is for large, long term, interdependent decisions, such as we've seen this week. I'm still firmly in the "eh, everything's negotiable" camp, but I understand why those who voted out think that is unfair.
I empathize with those who are saying they wish this was handled by representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Something so complex with so many permutations and such a potential global fall out is something where you would *hope* to consult people who do this for a living, and hope that they play with a straight bat in outlining the benefits and potential pitfalls.
My biggest regret about this election is less-so the result, and moreso that it became a referendum on "financial experts and political elite." I wholeheartedly endorse such distrust in those groups, but this was arguably the worst election possible with which to deliver them a mandate.
I also agree that a 52/48 margin for such a large decision feels incredibly thin, but as you said, what's the right level then?
I would say you need 67/33 (2:1) vote to change the status quo if you just count those voting.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
And would the same 67/33 (2:1) be required to keep us within The EU?
Like I said, you would need a 2:1 majority to change the status quo ie leave the EU. Anything less than that and we remain.
It's seems like some people believe in democracy, until they find themselves in the minority.
So standard disclaimer, I'm a Communist, at no point do I call myself a "Democratic Socialist" and I'm not a big fan of democracy.*
The thing about democracy is that it's not permanent, you're not voting for Monarchical options.
I'm not saying now is the time for a re-vote, but to say "Article 50 must be enacted now, and any new Government MUST do it" is, I think, shortsighted.
There will be another general election in the fall, by which point the early impacts of Brexit will be seen. It may well be that the pound and FTSE remain where they are for a bit, then slowly start to recover. It could be that by that time Britain has been thrown back into a recession. At which point, the electorate would have every right to say "this is not what we signed up for," or, "we were promised something else," or "The EU is shit, but it's better than the alternative." That would be an evolution of thought given more information.
It is of course also possible that center-right Tories and Labour MPs who campaigned to stay are kicked out of office for being wrong, as it is seen that Britain is better separated from the EU.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy, it's what separated it from that which came before.
*These comments are meant largely tongue-in-cheek
You make some good points, tongue-in-cheek or not.
I believe that democracy is generally a good thing, the will of the people and all that. I also believe that something as important as leaving the EU probably should have been decided on more than a 52%-48% vote. But we could have had endless debates on the exact ratio required, 55/45?, 60/40?, 70/30? Should we count it as a percentage of votes cast or of eligible voters?
In the end, it was a majority vote and the majority has spoken. Democracy rules, for better or worse.
Right, and all that I would add is that democracy rules for now.
Here in the states we have term limits for president and various other heads of individual states (Governors for example). It is to ensure a continuity of democracy, at least in theory.
Where this of course can fail is for large, long term, interdependent decisions, such as we've seen this week. I'm still firmly in the "eh, everything's negotiable" camp, but I understand why those who voted out think that is unfair.
I empathize with those who are saying they wish this was handled by representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Something so complex with so many permutations and such a potential global fall out is something where you would *hope* to consult people who do this for a living, and hope that they play with a straight bat in outlining the benefits and potential pitfalls.
My biggest regret about this election is less-so the result, and moreso that it became a referendum on "financial experts and political elite." I wholeheartedly endorse such distrust in those groups, but this was arguably the worst election possible with which to deliver them a mandate.
I also agree that a 52/48 margin for such a large decision feels incredibly thin, but as you said, what's the right level then?
I would say you need 67/33 (2:1) vote to change the status quo if you just count those voting.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
And would the same 67/33 (2:1) be required to keep us within The EU?
Like I said, you would need a 2:1 majority to change the status quo ie leave the EU. Anything less than that and we remain.
So by that logic we would never change government and never make a decision about anything ever again on any divisive subject.
Sounds like a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Sorry while I do understand your logic the rules have to apply to both sides.
Just heard Farage on the radio, live from the Euro parliament .. he's ripping into them but in a controlled and polite manner, getting a lot of boos and abuse but also a lot of applause.
I get the sense that the European politicos have a lot of time for Farage, as strange as that may seem .. while we seem to be scratching around for a person to lead the strategic withdrawal, the answer is obvious, give Farage the job, the Europeans know where he's coming from and most importantly, he's been a Euro MP for seventeen years, he knows the system backwards and will not be hoodwinked by a load of bullshitting non entities from Latvia, Croatia and all the other little tin pot nations who have far too much to say and do so little except kowtow to the Germans
This country is tired of experts - are you seriously telling me that experts know better?
Yeah, sod those heart surgeons I'm having my triple bypass done by the bloke next door. After all, the people tired of experts obviously had their brains removed by him.
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
I am fairly sure that a heart surgeon would be considered an expert.
And the references to experts relate to Mr Gove's dismissal of the overwhelming body of expert (by with I mean not just professional, but at the top of their field) opinion, because it did not accord with his own.
And you're all bloody "experts" at quoting!
You can thank me later for tidying that up, just so we can see who is upset at what!
Just heard Farage on the radio, live from the Euro parliament .. he's ripping into them but in a controlled and polite manner, getting a lot of boos and abuse but also a lot of applause.
I get the sense that the European politicos have a lot of time for Farage, as strange as that may seem .. while we seem to be scratching around for a person to lead the strategic withdrawal, the answer is obvious, give Farage the job, the Europeans know where he's coming from and most importantly, he's been a Euro MP for seventeen years, he knows the system backwards and will not be hoodwinked by a load of bullshitting non entities from Latvia, Croatia and all the other little tin pot nations who have far too much to say and do so little except kowtow to the Germans
Just seen his speech. He has about 5 people applauding him, there isn't much respect for him in that room. You can't insult everyone and expect them to work constructively with you.
Comments
Yeah, sod those heart surgeons I'm having my triple bypass done by the bloke next door. After all, the people tired of experts obviously had their brains removed by him.
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
It looks to me that everybody who gets paid for something can be described as professional.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
Means that the Remain side would pretty much always have a 2/1 chance of winning the vote
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
I am fairly sure that a heart surgeon would be considered an expert.
And the references to experts relate to Mr Gove's dismissal of the overwhelming body of expert (by with I mean not just professional, but at the top of their field) opinion, because it did not accord with his own.
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
You don't think a heart surgeon has expertise, is an expert in his field? The quote "This country is tired of experts" was not I think aimed at 'experts' on this forum who think they know about football. I think it is part of a general dumbing down of the population - "Don't listen to people who know anything - they're just coming on all superior and are really just trying to make us feel stupid." I think it is foolish of people to ignore the comments of people who have studied a long time in their field, even if they need to examine those statements closely before accepting them.
Some forms of expertise enable you to do things, or predict based on scientific/technical expertise and previous experience/history, e.g. surgeons, plumbers
When it comes to economic expertise, predicting outcomes is far less certain. The old joke about asking 100 economists and getting 100 different answers is partially true, as there are no right or wrong answers, and it entirely depends on your assumptions and view of how markets and economies work. None of the main economic experts predicted the 2008 financial meltdown, for example.
You can see that from the government's own forecasts
Ann Pettifor (http://www.debtonation.org/), Steve Keen (http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/) and Nouriel Roubini (http://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/) all predicted the crash - not to mention the hedge funds/analysts who made an absolute fortune from it
Large-scale economic systems can only really 'work' if a huge number of people are kept in the dark about them, simply because they all involve lying to people on a grand scale
I would add Krugman (I think) to the list of those who predicted it, as well as a personal favorite of mine, Prof. Richard D. Wolff who is a critic of Capitalism.
You have completely missed the point. Your Heart Surgeon would have undergone extensive training to get to where he/she is in his/her profession. He/her would be considered a "professional" not an expert.
This forum is full of "experts" who think they know all there is to know about football, does that make them professionals.............no.
I could start a web site, Facebook page, Twitter account etc claiming I was an "expert" in any subject that took my fancy, I would probably get found out eventually but before then I would leading on all my followers with my expert knowledge and views.
Sounds like a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Sorry while I do understand your logic the rules have to apply to both sides.
I get the sense that the European politicos have a lot of time for Farage, as strange as that may seem .. while we seem to be scratching around for a person to lead the strategic withdrawal, the answer is obvious, give Farage the job, the Europeans know where he's coming from and most importantly, he's been a Euro MP for seventeen years, he knows the system backwards and will not be hoodwinked by a load of bullshitting non entities from Latvia, Croatia and all the other little tin pot nations who have far too much to say and do so little except kowtow to the Germans
You can thank me later for tidying that up, just so we can see who is upset at what!
should ignore The Referendum as it was just the "Guidance of a Plebiscite".
I hope Red face Wasn't using the word in a pejorative way because the commoners have been battling for a voice since 300 BC in Rome.