Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bit cynical

djpbarry wrote: »

Given the amount of coverage Farage was given (someone who has failed to get elected to the Commons how many times?), I would have to disagree.

Nevertheless without Farage there would never have been a referendum in the first place. And, as leader of a party set up to get the UK out of the EU, it would be strange if he were not given prominent coverage in the TV media. We should not have to agree with him to see this.

I'm not sure I understand the point about not being an elected MP. Loads of people are prominent in the news media without winning seats in elections or even running for them.

Sam Russell

The problem with TV coverage is the need to have a voice pro and one tbe anti. Consequently, balance depends on having the right voices.

Choosing a poor voice for one side while having a very good voice for the other will give rise to significant bias.

Also not fact checking both sides gives rise to bias.

It is very easy for TV to introduce bias in a debate. The question is whether it is deliberate.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

You really want to be this pedantic? I think I made it clear in my last post that I was referring to the big papers, the ones that matter.

I don't think you made it very clear. You wrote "most papers campaigned for an exit" implying that there was a very limited variety of opinion in the media. Given the lists I have provided it is quite possible that more printed press journalists in the UK were favouring the remain option than the leave one. The fact that less people are reading what they write is a different story and has to do with the political aligmnement of the paper and its readers. The variety of opinion is there and all papers are as easily purchased from a newsagent or read online, people just make their own choices on which ones to buy.

Also you didn't take into account my comment that online readership greatly changes the picture. If you take into account online readership of newspapers it will already change the balance (though it will probably still slightly lean towards remain). And if you add 100% online news sources then you will reach either a balance or an advantage for remain.

djpbarry wrote: »

Given the amount of coverage Farage was given (someone who has failed to get elected to the Commons how many times?), I would have to disagree.

Unless you can show hard numbers showing that overall TV networks gave more coverage to leave campaigners that to remain campaigners (taking just Farage as an exemple is not valid, you have to look at the overall coverage for each side), we'll just agree to disagree here. I personally doubt they favoured either side purely from the perspective of quantity of coverage given to political campaigners.
I think beyond the amount of coverage what can make a difference are the choices in the way both option are presented by journalists themselves.

Ultimately, capitalism is a voting machine. Newspapers want to shift papers, and they are not in the business of alienating their market. Thus the FT was undoubtedly pro-Remain (grudgingly so, I think, and with some exceptions) and the Telegraph was vitriolically pro-Leave, with some exceptions.

But I wish the losers would just stop blaming the media, and indeed stop blaming the Leave side for doing their job.

Remain didn't do its job. It didn't convince people. That's why it lost. It's not very difficult to understand. You want to win something? Work harder. Stop blaming everybody else for your failure.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But I wish the losers would just stop blaming the media, and indeed stop blaming the Leave side for doing their job.

Their job is to lie?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Their job is to lie?

Of course not. Nobody said it was.

Where someone lies, you should be capable of clarifying that. If you fail in such a basic task, then you probably deserve to lose. Or at least, it shouldn't be a surprise when you lose.

These guys needs to stop blaming other people for their own shortcomings. Nobody owes them anything.

Calina

The fascinating thing is that as bad things start to happen - things flagged in advance by remain campaigners, the response of the Exit campaign is "Shut Up Already". They want to shut up debate because that enables them to avoid reality for another while longer.

You're right. The Remain campaign lost. But that does not mean you get to tell them to shut up when they start poking holes in the fact that the Exit campaign didn't have a clue what they were doing, don't know what Brexit actually means (Is It Norway. Is it Switzerland. Is it Albania. Is it Canada) and yet somehow seem to be convinced that every single time yet another programme is revealed to have been part of the relationship with the EU, suggests "we can just renegotiate that". Last week it was research funding. This week it's the Erasmus programme.

At what point does it become more efficient to stay in, instead of having to renegotiate every little programme, practically to the way it was on June 22 so that you can say "we're out" when in fact, you are not, really.

Calina

Calina wrote: »

You're right. The Remain campaign lost. But that does not mean you get to tell them to shut up when they start poking hole...

I'm not telling anyone to shut up, nor can I; nor would I, even if I were in any position to do so.

It's just tiresome to read a discussion which should be about the aftermath of the Referendum, and all I'm seeing is bitter moaning.

Brexit is very much unlike constitutional referendums in this country, where there are very few policy implications in the aftermath, and some degree of post-referendum bitching must be tolerated.

With Brexit, the policy considerations are huge, and broad-ranging. They're also fascinating, from an anorak p.o.v. So I just don't understand all the naval-gazing when there' so much else to talk about, like the border with NI, British trade with Ireland, and what this means for European integration.

I can't be the only one sick to the back teeth of this bitterness & inability to move on. The British Government, to its credit, is committed to making the best of Brexit & exploring some interesting possibilities. I don't see why ordinary commentators seem incapable of that discussion.

Lemming

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's just tiresome to read a discussion which should be about the aftermath of the Referendum, and all I'm seeing is bitter moaning.

In every democracy in every country around the world, are the parties that don't negotiate to form government having been elected to position within parliament simply expected to 'shut up' for four or five years?

No? Then calls to "shut up" are the calls of people who are afraid of their own shadow. Now why might that be? Could be because the Leave campaign .. I don't know ... lied through their back teeth and sold a pack of lies that they knew they could never deliver?

Bob24

Lemming wrote: »

In every democracy in every country around the world, are the parties that don't negotiate to form government having been elected to position within parliament simply expected to 'shut up' for four or five years?

No? Then calls to "shut up" are the calls of people who are afraid of their own shadow. Now why might that be? Could be because the Leave campaign .. I don't know ... lied through their back teeth and sold a pack of lies that they knew they could never deliver?

I don't think that's what he was saying though, a referendum is not a parliamentary election.

And of course people can still express their opinions and don't have to change their minds, but they have to accept the result of the democratic vote - which in this case seems to be difficult for some (who are finding every reason to say the referendum was not valid).

If you look at the gay marriage referendum in Ireland, people who voted no can still be against it and explain why thy think it wasn't a good idea. But I would have no time for them if they start saying the public was not properly informed or didn't realise the full consequences, and ask for a re-run after a few months or for parliament to prevent of the implementation of the vote.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

In every democracy in every country around the world, are the parties that don't negotiate to form government having been elected to position within parliament simply expected to 'shut up' for four or five years?

No? Then calls to "shut up" are the calls of people who are afraid of their own shadow. Now why might that be? Could be because the Leave campaign .. I don't know ... lied through their back teeth and sold a pack of lies that they knew they could never deliver?

Reread the first paragraph of my post, I'm not wasting my time repeating it. Bizarre reply!

Lemming

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Reread the first paragraph of my post, I'm not wasting my time repeating it. Bizarre reply!

Say one thing, then in the next sentence imply the opposite? I'd consider paying more attention to what you write before you start calling others replies "bizarre". Allow me to point out; bold is my emphasis.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not telling anyone to shut up, nor can I; nor would I, even if I were in any position to do so.

It's just tiresome to read a discussion which should be about the aftermath of the Referendum, and all I'm seeing is bitter moaning.

Brexit is very much unlike constitutional referendums in this country, where there are very few policy implications in the aftermath, and some degree of post-referendum bitching must be tolerated.

With Brexit, the policy considerations are huge, and broad-ranging. They're also fascinating, from an anorak p.o.v. So I just don't understand all the naval-gazing when there' so much else to talk about, like the border with NI, British trade with Ireland, and what this means for European integration.

I can't be the only one sick to the back teeth of this bitterness & inability to move on. The British Government, to its credit, is committed to making the best of Brexit & exploring some interesting possibilities. I don't see why ordinary commentators seem incapable of that discussion.

So yeah, you say one thing but then write quite the opposite and how you wish those who voted to remain would just shut up and accept the idiocy of the Leave campaign's lies.

Or how about I offer you this on your last two paragraphs; you're banging on about the "fascination" of brexit from the point of view of an anorak; I have to live with it. Less "fascination" and more "abject horror" at what can only be described as the most dumb-founded instance of collective self-mutilation ever commited to the history books. And the pathetic part is that the sh1t hasn't even begun to roll downhill yet and the Leave campaign are already crowing about how nothing has happened. Technically nothing has happened yet and already the markets have given the UK economy a kicking.

The bitter acrimony of this deceit is going to live for a very, very long time yet. Doubly so if Article 50 ever gets served; at which point I fully expect the economic panic to set in coming up on the 18 month count when everyone realises the absolute fantasy that was pedalled. So get used to hearing "the bitter moaning".

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

Say one thing, then in the next sentence imply the opposite?

You can read it however you wish. I'm simply suggesting that it's a waste of time dwelling on the past instead of having a conversation about how to move forward. That's very different to telling someone to 'shut up'.

Why is there such a victim mentality here? All I see is whinging, both here and in much of the UK media.

What will be the medium/long-term impact of Brexit on the Irish/EU economy? How will Central Banks react? Whose side will Germany take in the negotiations? What will be the consequences for EU euroscepticism and, the corollary, European integration?

I find these fascinating questions and I don't know why everyone who's interested in Brexit isn't equally curious. It's as if time stopped on June 24th when the results came in, and they are all frozen in its pumice, like a 21st century Pompeii.

you're banging on about the "fascination" of brexit from the point of view of an anorak; I have to live with it.

No offence but I didn't ask for your life story. I don't particularly care; it's a politics thread, not Liveline. Anorak discussions are part and parcel of this place, I should hope.

So, to return to the issues, what do you think... isn't this a wonderful thing for the future of European integration?

Zubeneschamali

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm simply suggesting that it's a waste of time dwelling on the past instead of having a conversation about how to move forward.

I suggest that the UK will have a recession this year, a depression for the next 2 years, and then it'll end.

The UK will end, I mean, not the depression, when Scotland leaves.

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why is there such a victim mentality here? All I see is whinging, both here and in much of the UK media.

Where you see whinging, I see deceit and abstention. Once Leave won, these disappeared into the wind once they knew that they might have to actually do something. In fairness, May has tied Boris down with some responsibility.

I work in science. 10% of scientific research funding comes from the EU and UK science is already feeling the pinch. It's only going to get worse. So, yes, I do feel entitled to "whinge" as I have to live with this now while the leavers get to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

Patser

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course not. Nobody said it was.

Where someone lies, you should be capable of clarifying that. If you fail in such a basic task, then you probably deserve to lose. Or at least, it shouldn't be a surprise when you lose.

These guys needs to stop blaming other people for their own shortcomings. Nobody owes them anything.

As Gove said ' People are tired of experts '. How can you win a debate if that's what you're up against. Here's a fact or prediction from a person most qualified to make the statement, sorry, that's ignored in favour of the 'lie' peddled by the opposition, who off handedly dismiss the evidence.

Yes the Remain campaign was incredibly insipid and poor. A Labour party that didn't want to be seen agreeing with the Tories, so did shag all. A Tory party debating the cause amongst itself, without wanting to be too divisive and split the party, giving a clean slate for UKIP and any other nebulous Leave group to make outlandish statements, which when experts contradicted them, could just dismiss their reasoning with sound bites.

Brexit was a shock result, and shocked the markets on the day. But the actual implementation hasn't in any way started (it's still very much at what do we do now stage!). So the real pain will be the 2 year constant drip of little bits of bad news, probably no single dramatic event.

Fantastic piece from John Lanchester here - http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

There were good reasons why British public life had strong taboos around the subject of immigration. It is true that this caused resentment about the fact that it became impossible to voice concerns about immigration without being accused of racism. Forbidden topics generate powerful feelings. The taboo also stopped people making arguments in favour of immigration, and cut off the debate before it could properly begin. The economic arguments in favour of immigration, in rich Western countries with low birthrates, are pretty straightforward: since the next generation of taxpayers aren’t being born, we’re going to have to import them, if we want to keep our healthcare systems, pensions and welfare states. The Office for Budget Responsibility puts the necessary level of long-term immigration at 140,000 a year. But while the benefits of immigration are generally shared, the local impacts can sometimes seem overwhelming, especially when an area with no previous experience of immigration suddenly finds itself with thousands or tens of thousands of new arrivals, and no corresponding increase in resources to help with the pressure on housing, schools, healthcare and the rest. Governments have been far too slow to respond to this tension between long-term collective good and short-term local costs.

A few bits of tinfoil hattery in amongst it all, but I would agree with an awful awful lot of his analysis.

What, over the last few decades, has been the political ‘offer’ to these people? In truth, nothing much. The reality of the modern British economy is that the thriving sectors raise the taxes which pay for the rest. The old work has gone and is not coming back.

This being the sticking point, what is the new, non-EU member, UK government going to do differently for all of these areas which the previous cannot? What positive impact does 'Taking back control' have on them? If these jobs are not coming back, what can/should the Government do to help?

As before, immigration was a simple scapegoat when it came to terrible planning (immigrants disproportionately contribute to the state, and use less services) and expenditure.

Switching off the tap of immigrants will not suddenly convert the planners (with now lower budgets) to be more proactive in their expansion plans.

The worry is that people who voted for 'something different' will probably get something different, but it won't be positive.

So the likeliest outcome, I’d have thought, is a betrayal of the white working class. They should be used to it by now.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Where you see whinging, I see deceit and abstention. Once Leave won, these disappeared into the wind once they knew that they might have to actually do something. In fairness, May has tied Boris down with some responsibility.

Oh not this again.

Boris Johnson was only too delighted to have his political career revived after Gove assassinated him in Gove's bid for the Premiership!

In the end you had two Brexit ministers campaigning to be Prime Minister, and the other prominent Brexit MP has become Foreign Secretary.

What on earth can you be on about? This mad nonsense cannot still have any currency.

Unless you're referring to Farage, in which case you should be aware that he is neither a Conservative nor an MP, despite his seven attempts in joining the Commons. God knows why you want him to have a role in leadership, or why anybody would be so utterly naive to expect it, under any circumstances.

It would be as mad as asking Janice Atkinson, (pro-Leave) Labour Party MEP, to join Theresa May's government. It is a bonkers notion. It is literally bonkers.

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh not this again....

So things will carry on exactly as before save for the NHS' new cash injection? The government will match EU subsidies? We'll get amazing trade deals with the rest of the world now we're free from the decaying EU superstate?

Farage has no place anywhere in the negotiations as he was never elected to be an MP. However, Daniel Hannan has gone on record saying that freedom of movement will continue unhindered. The NHS claim has already been retracted. Gove knew he'd no chance of ever becoming PM and Boris was quite quiet until May appointed him foreign secretary.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So things will carry on exactly as before save for the NHS' new cash injection? The government will match EU subsidies? We'll get amazing trade deals with the rest of the world now we're free from the decaying EU superstate?

Why, why, why are you going off on this tangent?

Do I even want to know?

It has nothing to do with your equally mad contention that the Brexiteers are MIA.

You've been listening to Farage too much, you are making no sense.

130Kph

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You can read it however you wish. I'm simply suggesting that it's a waste of time dwelling on the past instead of having a conversation about how to move forward.

Er, the thread is titled “Brexit Referendum Superthread”.

I hope this thread remains open since it will be useful to continue discussing what I think is arguably the dumbest decision taken by an advanced country, in peacetime, in the last 200 years.

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why, why, why are you going off on this tangent?

Tangent? I'm talking about the promises made by the leave campaign which have little to no chance of being fulfilled.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Tangent? I'm talking about the promises made by the leave campaign which have little to no chance of being fulfilled.

Which nobody mentioned, bar you.

I responded to your utterly fatuous, incorrect suggestion about 'abstention' of Brexiteers, and you responded with some tangent about the NHS, which is totally unrelated.

There is more cognitive dissonance here than a brothel full of baptists. People are actually upset because the Brexiteers they hate ran from power, except they didn't, and two of them got promoted to Government, except they were forced to, except for Gove, who only ran for the Premiership because he knew he was going to lose anyway, and then there's Farage, the opposition MEP who should be helping a different political party run the country, except he isn't an MP.

Oh. My. Long. Suffering. Christ. Lads, listen to yourselves. You are making no sense.

johnnyskeleton

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It has nothing to do with your equally mad contention that the Brexiteers are MIA.

You've been listening to Farage too much, you are making no sense.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I responded to your utterly fatuous, incorrect suggestion about 'abstention' of Brexiteers, and you responded with some tangent about the NHS, which is totally unrelated.

There is more cognitive dissonance here than a brothel full of baptists. People are actually upset because the Brexiteers they hate ran from power, except they didn't, and two of them got promoted to Government, except they were forced to, except for Gove, who only ran for the Premiership because he knew he was going to lose anyway, and then there's Farage, the opposition MEP who should be helping a different political party run the country, except he isn't an MP.

Oh. My. Long. Suffering. Christ. Lads, listen to yourselves. You are making no sense.

Mod Note:

Please tone it down. This is not a civil way to post and is contrary to the charter. Just because you have made a point and another poster doesn't respond to it, does not give you the right to demand a response. Equally, if you feel that someone is going off topic you can report the post.

whatever_

Patser wrote: »

As Gove said ' People are tired of experts '. How can you win a debate if that's what you're up against. Here's a fact or prediction from a person most qualified to make the statement, sorry, that's ignored in favour of the 'lie' peddled by the opposition, who off handedly dismiss the evidence.

Yes the Remain campaign was incredibly insipid and poor. A Labour party that didn't want to be seen agreeing with the Tories, so did shag all. A Tory party debating the cause amongst itself, without wanting to be too divisive and split the party, giving a clean slate for UKIP and any other nebulous Leave group to make outlandish statements, which when experts contradicted them, could just dismiss their reasoning with sound bites.

Brexit was a shock result, and shocked the markets on the day. But the actual implementation hasn't in any way started (it's still very much at what do we do now stage!). So the real pain will be the 2 year constant drip of little bits of bad news, probably no single dramatic event.

The STG330M / NHS argument was well understood by everybody that took an interest in the debate .. it is completely legitimate to say that this is the amount of money that Britain hands over to the EU every week, even if some of it comes back in CAP, regional aid and the rebate. Nobody in their right mind thinks that it would be a good idea to spend this amount of money on the NHS (on top of current spending).

The only "lie" was the one peddled by Enda Kenny, Tony Blair and yes Theresa May .... that there would have to be a hard border:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0613/795120-brexit/

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-border-controls-are-inevitable-after-brexit-may-warns-1.2693758

This has now been exposed as scaremongering. Yes the "Remain" side were poor - peddling nonsense such as this
led many of us to conclude that they were just scared of change and had nothing to say.

Two year drip of bad news ? Markets hate uncertainty, and there will be some ups and downs, but the steady drip of good news is palpable : vis a vis the employment figures, the long overdue devaluation of sterling, the FTSE 100, the progress on trade deals etc

Oh. I must have made a mistake.

Ancapalldorcha, when you referred to abstention, who are you accusing of absenting themselves from dealing with the fallout of Brexit?

I know I'm not entitled to an answer from you, but since you did reply, I'd like to point out that you answered a different question entirely, and one which was never asked.

Hope that clears everything up.

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh. I must have made a mistake.

Ancapalldorcha, when you referred to abstention, who are you accusing of absenting themselves from dealing with the fallout of Brexit?

I know I'm not entitled to an answer from you, but since you did reply, I'd like to point out that you answered a different question entirely, and one which was never asked.

Hope that clears everything up.

I was referring to the silence on the part of people like Johnson, Farage et al along with retractions of promises by people like Daniel Hannan. There did seem to be quite a bit of hesitation for nominating people for the Tory leadership though, in fairness, Michael Gove was quick enough to have a pop at Boris Johnson.

Anyway, this is something of a personal topic for me given the field I work in so I'm willing to accept that my points may not be completely rock solid.

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was referring to the silence on the part of people like Johnson, Farage et al along with retractions of promises by people like Daniel Hannan.

I got the impression that Hannon was always on the moderate side of the of the Brexiteers, favouring close ties with the EU, something along the lines of the Norway model but not necessarily identical to it. Can you point out specific promises he made along with the retractions of those promises.

A Dub in Glasgo

whatever_ wrote: »

The STG330M / NHS argument was well understood by everybody that took an interest in the debate .. it is completely legitimate to say that this is the amount of money that Britain hands over to the EU every week

No, it is not

Nobody in their right mind thinks that it would be a good idea to spend this amount of money on the NHS (on top of current spending).

Like this?
[/url]

Zubeneschamali

whatever_ said "Nobody in their right mind", and that is a picture of Boris, so...