,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that people misunderstand the use of qualifiers around Brexit-related predictions. ("might", "could", "may" etc.). For example "The UK might be subject to 10% tariff on cars." But the doubt isn't around the value of the tariff.
That's 10%. fixed by the EU's WTO schedule. So IF we end up trading with the EU on WTO terms, we WILL (not "might" or "may") be subject to that 10% tariff on cars. The uncertainty is there because, with 23 days left, we still don't know which version of Brexit we're getting.
In other words, we know a lot of things for definite. But we don't know whether those clearly defined things will happen or not. Brexiters get confused between the likelihood of them happening, and the likelihood of them being true - not the same thing!
For instance, if a given EU law no longer applies to us, it will have XYZ predictable consequences. Those shouldn't be up for discussion, because they're fact not opinion. What remains uncertain is if a new law or mitigation can be slipped into place before we lose the old one.
I'll finish by reiterating the point about facts. Facts don't change dependent on the observer. The chemical composition of water doesn't depend on if the person examining it is Leave or Remain. Likewise, the EU's tariff on cars is 10% no matter what. Facts only have ONE "side".
So next time a Brexiter asserts something's not true, pay *very* close attention to what they're claiming is false. Are they arguing about the *probability* of something happening? Fair enough, perhaps. Or are they denying a fact is true? That's ridiculous - it's not an opinion!
