Brexit might be trickier than we thought

@ Maizie

He says on Twitter that he hadn't realised what the impact of immigrants would be. Sounds very dodgy. [hmm...]

It's more like that he's been offered a few dollars by certain quarters.

Incidentally, he might think he's an 'expert' and he has a loyal band of followers, but he's not much respected by any academic historians.

Cunco and Luckygirl... good posts.

"not much respected by academic historians"
Evidence? (not saying there is any, just wondering where that came from).

He is an academic historian, which suggests to me that at least some academics respect him or he wouldn't have an academic job.

But that isn't the point. As usual people have rushed to criticise the man rather than what he's saying. My point was that intelligent and sensible people, who do have some expertise, present arguments on both sides of the debate.

Exactly.

And that of course all the negotiations will be tricky. Negoatiations between governments always are, even when they're friendly.

My daughter, who is an academic historian, and just general reading. David Cameron made him his 'history tsar' and historians were up in arms about it. I read some of the arguments. One of his gems was that J M Keynes was a rubbish economist because he was gay and, therefore, didn't have a stake in society and the future. Ferguson and Paul Krugman have frequent online spats, which are sometimes quite entertaining.

Incidentally, the 'any' should have read 'many'.

He's highly controversial - as I wrote, he's the Marmite of historians - either love him or hate him. His speciality is counterfactual history ie 'what if...' history, which is standard fodder for conspiracy sites. Fascinating to read and makes the headlines, but not always much evidence. His real talent is self-publicising.

If you look at his Twitter account, he says that he made a mistake about supporting Brexit and should have listened to 'the man down the pub'. Why? He's spent his whole life researching and writing about history. Surely he should know a bit more than the man down the pub. Is he trying to appear a non-expert, because it's suits the times? Tut tut! Surely not!

This is being reported originally by Breitbart, which I'm sure you know has connections to the right wing in America. Trump has named Breitbart's former CEO, Steve Bannon, as his chief strategist and Raheem Kassam, Breitbart's London editor, was going to run as leader of UKIP. He was Arron Banks' favourite.

So much for these elite conspiracies Farage & Co whinge about, huh? Are you beginning to see similarities?

Incidentally, in between dancing and marathon running, Ed Balls is back at Harvard as a Senior Fellow. I wonder if Breitbart and the DM will approve all of his tweets, because he's an 'expert'.

@thatbags

Ferguson doesn't present both sides of a debate. He's too convinced that he's right - always - which is why he's had to come up with a twisted argument to justify being wrong about the referendum.

So, dd, even though Ferguson argued on the Remain side before the referendum and is now arguing on the Leave side, according to you he doesn't argue both sides?

I'm having difficulty understanding that idea.

I think educated people with controversial views are good for society. Ptolemy, Galileo, Darwin...

daphnedill When he said ' we should have listened to the man down the pub' I don't think he meant that they were experts: more that he and many others were so sure that the remain vote would win. And because him and his ilk are so far removed from reality it came as a shock.
You might not agree with his views but he's obviously not a stupid man ( unlike us brexiters) but he might not want to be on the loosing side again when the Eu collapses.

I think that's right, petra. After all, even most Leavers thought Remain would win. The vote going the way it did has shaken up more opinions than that of Niall Ferguson. At least he has the decency to look again and rethink instead of just carrying on saying how stupid/awful/racist etc Leavers are. Likewise Theresa May. That's why she has my respect (well, some of it).

I've been following some of the Twitter discussion and, from what I can work out, it goes like this...

Before the referendum, Ferguson was an ardent Remain supporter, based on economic facts and rational arguments. He still believes in those arguments and thinks the 'man in the pub' is wrong and doesn't understand the facts.

He spoke publicly in favour of Remain and believed Remain would win. As we now know, they didn't.

Ferguson isn't arguing isn't that the 'man in the pub is right' and doesn't even think that the MITP knows what he's doing. He's just saying that it was inevitable that Leave would win, because so many people supported it.

Ferguson's view of history doesn't have anything to do with making the right (sensible or moral) decisions. For him, history is made up of random acts by individuals or groups of individuals...in this case, the people who voted Leave.

If I (or some other nobody) had changed my mind, nobody would have taken any notice, but because it's Ferguson, people think he's right. The DM, DE have already distorted his argument, as has Breitbart.

Irwin in Alan Bennett's 'History Boys' is based on Niall Ferguson. Irwin says "an entire career can be built on the trick of contrariness", which seems perfect for post-factual society.

No, thatbags, he hasn't rethought what he thinks should have been the better decision. He's just saying that it was inevitable, because so many people voted with their hearts not their heads.

petra,

Ferguson does think Brexiters are stupid - or, at least, didn't know what they were doing.

Arron Banks, who funded Leave, said " 'Facts don’t work' and that's it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success."

@thatbags

I'm going out, so can't continue. You need to read the Twitter discussion to understand that he doesn't support both sides. Ferguson uses arguments which most people would think quite twisted - that's why he's influential and seen as an original thinker - the career built on the trick of contrariness. He doesn't support Brexit, but claims it was inevitable, because that's what people wanted, even though they're deluded. He doesn't argue in terms of rightness or wrongness of the decision itself.

Well, Daphne, you have one thing right. My quote was from Caroline Lucas.

I agree with Caroline Lucas on some things but not on others. I feel the same about most politicians. I agree with her that the EU is not very democratic. I disagree that we can make it more so. It has been claimed for 40 years that we have to be in the EU to reform the EU. We have hardly tried, let alone succeeded.

I wish we could all take up her suggestion to talk about the EU, its future and our part within the EU if that is where we stay. I have grave doubts about its future. I have always thought that the Eurozone was a big mistake and its failure could yet bring the EU tumbling down. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz agrees; I am sure there are other economists who don't.

Yes, good job we didn't agree to the eurozone isn't it? We couldn't change much from inside the EU, and we can see that Cameron got nothing worth having the last time he tried.

Historians can't even agree on history, yet alone predict the future.

Do you follow horse racing, cunco?

Are you still there, cunco?

Unfortunately you don't understand historiography, roses, so there's no point in further discussion with you.

in that case, as you are the expert dd I will leave you in peace. Goodwill of the Season and all that.

If an understanding of historiography was a necessary condition for a sensible discussion, it would probably be very quiet around here. For those who would like a refresher course, try ploughing through this:

www.britannica.com/topic/historiography

Quite why it was brought up here in such a condescending fashion defeats me, just as why it it relevant whether I follow horse racing.

I can answer one of Daphne's questions: At 0150 this morning. I was not here. I was asleep in bed.

I don't even know what historiography is. <heads dictionariwards> ?