Skip to main content

The BMW Fallacy

Read a few interesting things today. James Dyson said on the Andrew Marr show that Brexit offers a fantastic opportunity for the UK, and that Britain should walk away from negotiations and the EU will come running after us with an offer. [1]

The comments about this on the Get Britain Out of the EU! Facebook page were in full agreement, of course:
Of course James Dyson is right - they NEED us. They want to trade with us. They will be queuing to strike a deal. Then we can all get on with it and it won't cost billions! 
I agree, the Eu needs Britain far more than Britain needs the Eu. Leave now, without a deal, You will have one and a good one within days. 
I agree with him, he said that it was appalling that they are demanding more money to talk to us, why can't our government realize that the E U will lose out in a "no deal" with us? I have always wanted NO deal with them anyway!!
Similar sentiments have been expressed by Yanis Varoufakis, Greek minister of finance during the Greek debt crisis, who suggested the same failed negotiating tactic: stand firm and wait for their offer. This position has been savaged by Pavlos Eleftheriadis [2], claiming that Yanis lead Greece to the brink of disaster, and is no hero. Pavlos' conclusion is that brinkmanship with the EU will never succeed and is a really terrible strategy.

Businessman John Caudwell threw a more conciliatory tone [3], echoing Daniel Hannan's view that a deal between the EU and the UK is in everyone's best interests.

This collective delusion is the "BMW Fallacy". It was a popular myth for a year that a no-deal outcome would be unthinkable because German car makers would pressure the German government, who would in turn pressure the EU into cutting the UK a deal in order to sell more cars to the UK. Yet the German car makers have been crystal clear that the UK can expect no help from them [4].

The idea is that common sense must prevail, and that economic arguments trump all others. But Brexit was won on emotion and ideology, on the sacrifice of economics for the sake of sovereignty, yet we now expect this to no longer apply. The EU has its principles too, and needs to consider the collective good. There is a lot of bad blood between the EU and the UK, due mainly to mistakes made by UK ministers, and that the UK being difficult about its financial commitments and the rights of citizens is doing nothing to help the situation.

The armchair experts in Get Britain Out have fallen silent on the idea of "German car makers", but the sentiment remains. The EU can be a little flexible of course, but ultimately it neither needs, wants or is able to break its rules for the sake of Britain.

Like Yanis Varoufakis, the Brexit side are leading the UK down a blind alleyway by badly misjudging the situation.

Sources
  1. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/878679/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Sir-James-Dyson-BBC-The-Andrew-Marr-Show-European-Union-video
  2. http://verfassungsblog.de/losing-to-the-european-union-a-review-of-yanis-varoufakis-book-adults-in-the-room/
  3. https://www.neweurope.eu/article/brexit-hysteria-sides-political-divide-unnecessary-time-negotiate-deal-works-everyone/
  4. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/08/german-industry-warns-uk-over-brexit

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...
3 comments
Read more

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50...
3 comments
Read more

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel...
3 comments
Read more