Brexit discussion thread IV

devnull

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Fairly sure there were no official Exit polls, didn't the companies say in advance that they had no methodology to do one as there hadn't been any such nationwide binary votes before. They would have had no idea of who, when or where to sample with what weightings. But they did conduct the polls on the day purely to use as the 'base' information for future referendums. So it's possible that people had this ongoing information but it would have been regarded as potentially unreliable.

Also the idea that Farage 'knew' that Leave won but said Remain had won falls down on his 'this isn't over' comment. If he knew Leave had won then the obvious thing to say would have been 'Remain has won, its over, we respect the result completely as democrats and wont carry on'.

His this isn't over comment that I heard was in relation to what would happen if leave lost by 3-4% margin, which he thought would happen.

briany

Theresa May has taken after her dad in that she has the cadence of an Anglican vicar when she makes formal speeches. It's just this dispassionate, serene monologue that attempts to please all viewpoints while actually pleasing none of them. It's like she's trying to make everyone fall asleep so she can rush through a deal.

zapitastas

bilston wrote: »

As far as I can remember there were no exit polls but the early results were showing higher than expected support for Brexit so maybe he would have had an idea. But that said I haven't heard that before about him having a bet on Remain!

I heard that it had been currency fluctuations that were being exploited and the early conceding to remain was calculated

ArmaniJeanss

devnull wrote: »

His this isn't over comment that I heard was in relation to what would happen if leave lost by 3-4% margin, which he thought would happen.

Yes, and I believe what you are saying to be the actual truth of it.

But we are being led to believe on the last page or two of posts that he actually knew Leave had won because of his access to polling results, and just said what he did to make a killing on currency/stock markets and betting exchanges.
I don't quite see him as being Machiavellian enough to make that financial killing, yet stupid enough to miss the political open goal that was there and would have stopped two years of 'even Farage said on the night there'd be a rerun'.
It's Farage, he's not that clever nor that thick.

An Ciarraioch

An interesting NI development buried in a more general Sunday Independent piece - it appears Micheál Martin held "productive" talks with the SDLP leader, Colum Eastwood, and a significant announcement "that will realign Irish politics" will be made in September. Now, whether that means a full-blown merger between the two parties, or more that the SDLP would act as an NI branch of FF is unclear, but either way, it seems FF politicians will become involved in Northern elections, regardless of the type of Brexit.

Trasna1

Bambi wrote: »

I was just wondering if Mogg et al are betting against the euro and that's why they're so keen on a hard brexit

The other thing is, the UK can forget amount readmission to the EU regardless of how it works out for them. There would be no appetite to have them back in the fold after this flustercuck

They'd be betting against the pound if they wanted to make a profit on Brexit.

Unless attitudes change there may well be a currency crisis in the UK. However it may require a currency crisis for saner heads to prevail.

Trasna1

Infini wrote: »

I think a 2nd referendum or a general election has to happen one way or another. The only difference is this time the remain side doesn't have to use project fear they can use a 2 way approach by saying Britain need's to be helping lead the EU not castigating it and pointing out the sheer failure's of the leave side by pointing out they cheated, they went in without a plan and they risk the well being of the UK by pursuing a policy that could end the UK in the long term.

Even if remain win's we all know the problem wont dissapear overnight but it would give those who have some common sense some breathing room to sort out the problem's namely take aim at the more cancerous element's of society and the failure's in their own government structure that lead them into this farcial situation to begin with.

The EU despite all the carryon doesn't want the UK to go because in the long run it's not in anyone's interest. They'll most likely allow the UK to remain in the event of a 2nd referendum though a new government is probably gonna be needed to repair relation's since the headbangers who created this mess have to go.



I honestly think Mogg is far more malicious than simply being a headbanging idiot, he's most likely along with farage doing this so they can profit off the inevitable crash from all this.

It's there is to be a second referendum then the remain campaign need to study the Irish rerun campaigns that overturned Nice and Lisbon. Rather than high brow discussions on why an participation in an international multilateral organization is a good thing, it needs to be broken down to more base terms, like "vote Yes for jobs"

Infini

Trasna1 wrote: »

They'd be betting against the pound if they wanted to make a profit on Brexit.

Unless attitudes change there may well be a currency crisis in the UK. However it may require a currency crisis for saner heads to prevail.

I'd be honest what might get people focused would be the pound dropping below the Euro in value. The fact that a Euro would be more valuable than a Pound would most definately focus some heads.

EdgeCase

I think GBP has been getting the benefit of the doubt as a hard Brexit was seen as unlikely or even implausible by many a few months ago. There's also a London bias in financial a analysis, as it's major hub of financial services and the business media.

I suspect if say France pulled a similar stunt they would have been crucified by the markets much more readily.

I see echoes of 2007 when the financiers were ignoring the impending financial meltdown warning signs too.

Markets are all about group think and confidence. People tend to credit them with a lot more intelligence and logic than they actually have.

Infini

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

An interesting NI development buried in a more general Sunday Independent piece - it appears Micheál Martin held "productive" talks with the SDLP leader, Colum Eastwood, and a significant announcement "that will realign Irish politics" will be made in September. Now, whether that means a full-blown merger between the two parties, or more that the SDLP would act as an NI branch of FF is unclear, but either way, it seems FF politicians will become involved in Northern elections, regardless of the type of Brexit.

It could be a merger or laying the groundwork for a UI for example. Fact is if there's a Hard Brexit there needs to be a unification plan ready to go in the event of a hard brexit that focuses on the collosal failures of the DUP/CON who drove them off a cliff and that they have the option of an out with every advantage that comes with it.

They need to get people focused towards a constructive way of getting out of the situation they were put in against their will and not let things slide into disorder.

bilston

Anthracite wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

For General elections yes and you are correct they are published bang in 10pm, but there were no exit polls for the referendum.

No private polling?

I'm sure there was. I'm talking about a broadcasters exit poll as seen at General Elections.

An Ciarraioch

bilston wrote: »

I'm sure there was. I'm talking about a broadcasters exit poll as seen at General Elections.

No there was no Brexit exit poll - first indications came before midnight in Newcastle and Sunderland.

Anthracite

Farage and exit polls story is here. What's a Farage denial worth?

Edit: and here. Apparently Crispin Odey made £220,000,000.

badtoro

devnull wrote: »

His this isn't over comment that I heard was in relation to what would happen if leave lost by 3-4% margin, which he thought would happen.

Yes. I saw it earlier in a search, pretty easy to find, although I was looking for a video of it ☺

badtoro

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Putin wants to break up the Eu and whole postwar western order. I say follow Farages et al money back to Kremlin. They cant all just be useful idiots

They certainly have common cause. What's most worrying is the idiocy of voters who blindly follow.

bilston

I see the Evening Standard have a poll ouy showing 54% support for Remain and 46% for Leave in the UK.

It shows how divided the UK is but it also shows that the UK shouldn't be held to hostage by the ERG.

Anthracite

bilston wrote: »

I see the Evening Standard have a poll ouy showing 54% support for Remain and 46% for Leave in the UK.

It shows how divided the UK is but it also shows that the UK shouldn't be held to hostage by the ERG.

You have to wonder how far that number would have to move before even the proponents of 'the will of the people' argument reckon a snapshot of opinion on one day by a subset of the populace should take precedence when the consequences are so huge.

bilston

Anthracite wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

I see the Evening Standard have a poll ouy showing 54% support for Remain and 46% for Leave in the UK.

It shows how divided the UK is but it also shows that the UK shouldn't be held to hostage by the ERG.

You have to wonder how far that number would have to move before even the proponents of 'the will of the people' argument reckon a snapshot of opinion on one day by a subset of the populace should take precedence when the consequences are so huge.

I hate that term "will of the people". The 16 million who voted to Remain might as well not exist. The scary thing is if you read some social media comments by some Brexiteers they'd rather Remainers emigrated to another country so they could get their hard Brexit.

An Ciarraioch

EU officials state only another GE or a second referendum would justify an extension to Article 50:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/22/article-50-extension-unlikely-without-shift-in-uk-politics-say-eu-officials

Water John

I would like to begin to approach 60:40. More important is having a def trend towards it. Very hard then for Brexiteers to reverse that train. A gap of 10 points anyway.

McGiver

Enzokk wrote: »

It does seem that the momentum has shifted towards no-deal Brexit. You have the ERG with their 80 MP's deciding the course because they hold enough votes to remove Theresa May. You now have a new Brexit minister who is repeating the mistakes of the previous minister. The difference is we are not about 2 years out from Brexit but only a mere few weeks away from getting the withdrawal agreement settled.

Take the threat not to pay the Brexit divorce money in case of no deal. I think most of us know that this is not a payment for a deal. The UK could still pay this money to the EU and not get a deal. It is money they have committed to pay and is part of the withdrawal agreement and not a trade deal. Raab is a lawyer, he is not supposed to be stupid but he sure is acting in a stupid manner.

I hope the Irish government has stepped up the preparations for a no-deal Brexit. If it has to happen it has to happen. If they have tried their best to avoid no-deal but the UK is pushing for a deal that is against our interests as part of the EU then we will have to deal with the consequences. I suspect it will be rough on us, but it will not compare to what NI and the UK will have to deal with.

In all fairness to the Brexiteers, who I despise, one of their arguments has some merit. That the liabilities calculations do not include the UK’s share of the EU assets. So they are somewhat right in rejecting the liability bill.

However, the main issue here is they are untrustworthy. They had agreed to the bill before and are now backtracking. The same goes for the backstop. So what else they will backtrack on?
What guarantee is there that they won't breach any future agreement with the EU?

They have lost any reputation and trustworthiness. But they think the EU will entrust them to collect duties on their behalf? It's like a prisoner asking for keys from the prison, promising that he will ensure his cell is locked.

No point negotiating anything with this lot really. Big respect to Mr Barnier for not telling them to get lost.

McGiver

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Is there much comment in the UK on the BBC and their handling of the Brexit fiasco? They have been shambolic and downright neglectful as a national outlet. Channel 4 news has utterly put them to shame

Was watching paper review on BBC news last night, comments very one sided with the other commentator agreeing with first on the usual "EU bad, Tories are trying their best, they need to sell us their cars and potatoes" line of bullmanure

Why are they doing this? I'm sure they have qualified experienced journalists who can see through the PR fog and identify Brexit as shambles and disaster.

EdgeCase

I'm not sure what's going on at the BBC, but the critical analysis of Brexit is sorely lacking at the moment in their news output. I have a feeling it's either a large dose of 'media capture' where they're not able to see the issues, but I don't really understand how that could be the case given their news gathering and analytical resources.

What's shocking me more than anything is that presenters and journalists are failing to ask glaringly obvious questions and are not seeing gaping holes in facts. I cannot believe how poorly briefed many of them seem to be on basics about how the EU functions, general economics and so on.

I am starting to wonder is it just a case of 'professionalised journalism' where the majority of the staff are actually media graduates rather than experts in politics and current affairs, as it would have been in decades gone by. That's something that's impacting media across the spectrum and here to a degree too. Most newer (and I mean going back about 20 years) journalists are coming from a background in purely journalism. Previously journalism was more of a trade you learnt than a formalised profession. You might have added the skillset by learning on the job or doing a short qualification. Nowadays, it's been professionalised to the level that people are coming in with undergraduate qualifications in journalism, which is rather too specialised in my opinion anyway.

I just see a lot of media analysing media over there and also TV news taking a rather lazy lead from 'what it says in the papers' type stuff.

There's also a likely element of the BBC being bombarded with complaints anytime they go too hard on Brexiteers, which would tend to cause them to try to become 'balanced' i.e. provide both sides of the story when one side may not have very much to stand it up.

Channel 4 news attracts much smaller audiences and has always had a different and far edgier view of the world. I would rate them as more likely to be capable of taking a genuinely independent view of the news than the current generation of BBC News.

All that being said, there's also a consensus in favour of Brexit emerging in the UK from what I can see. It's rolling on so long, largely unchallenged and because there hasn't been an economic wipeout, people are all just assuming that it's going to be business-as-usual and it's a big fuss about nothing. I think that's also pervading even relatively sensible aspects of the media.

It's very much the kind of group think that was going on in Ireland pre 2008. A few outliers like David Mcwilliams, George Lee and so on were sounding the warning bells and very few people seemed to think they were worth taking seriously.

My concern is that market confidence in the UK could very suddenly melt away and when you strip it back there's really not all that much holding the economy together. It could come as a real shock and happen very quickly.

cml387

In times of national crisis it's always going to be the BBC who will be in the firing line.
It happened during the Falklands war, continually during the Troubles, and notably during the build up to the second Gulf war which cost them a Director General.

It's a measure of the (diminishing, regrettably) respect that the BBC has that we expect it to represent "our" side . It can't. All it can do is give equal airtime to both sides and let the public make up its mind.

This is the impossible "balance" the BBC has to apply to the debate.

Dyr

cml387 wrote: »

This is the impossible "balance" the BBC has to apply to the debate.

like the balance they had during the indyref?

cml387

Bambi wrote: »

like the balance they had during the indyref?

Sorry, you'll have to explain.

Leroy42

But balance seems to have taken over from any sense of fact checking or holding people to account.

Whilst I understand why people complain that the likes of Farage are given too much airtime, its when they are given such airtime without adequate questioning that I have a problem with.

Daniel Hannon, fir example, loves the will of people stuff, yet he is rarely called up on his statement priot to the vote that nobody was talking about leaving the SM.

Or Boris saying he wanted to stay in CU. Even today some Tory mentioned household savings of £2300pa. Nothing was said. No backup, no questions on surely that would mean for UK based companies etc (I know it was Sky but just the latest example and plenty of examples on BBC)

cml387

I agree that if an interviewee makes a statement that is factually untrue, then they should be challenged. In fact it did happen in an interview with Nigel Lawson on Today where he made a ridiculously untrue statement about climate change which was not challenged, the BBC were rightly
slapped on the head by Ofcom.

The problem with Brexit is that any outcomes must be matters of conjecture in most cases. If JRM says that Britain will benefit from leaving the EU, then what can an interviewer say. "no they won't"?

BonnieSituation

cml387 wrote: »

Sorry, you'll have to explain.

BBC were famously hard on their questioning for SNP politicians; even questioning serious minutiae that couldn't have been answered and that would have been part of a negotiation after a "YES" vote. And then when the "Better Together" crew were given platforms to peddle their twaddle to the masses. There's a huge movement in Scotland from people NOT paying their TV licence as a result.

Sam Russell

cml387 wrote: »

I agree that if an interviewee makes a statement that is factually untrue, then they should be challenged. In fact it did happen in an interview with Nigel Lawson on Today where he made a ridiculously untrue statement about climate change which was not challenged, the BBC were rightly
slapped on the head by Ofcom.

The problem with Brexit is that any outcomes must be matters of conjecture in most cases. If JRM says that Britain will benefit from leaving the EU, then what can an interviewer say. "no they won't"?

Well,JRM was questioned on CH4 News about when UK will see the benefits of Brexit and his answer - 'in fifty years'. Well most UK voters who voted for Brexit will be dead by then.

There are plenty of EU and Gov reports detailing the economic effects of Brexit - they just need to read and understand them.

1. Cost of Customs Declarations - £35 a pop by hundreds of million per month.

2. Delays - JIT production becomes impossible and probably fatal for car production as currently operated by UK assembly plants.

3. Increased stock holding to cover [2].

4. Cert of Origin problems because of not being in the EU.

5. Air traffic - generally requires new agreements for all aspects only First Freedom survives Brexit.

6. Insurance - how will that work out?

7. Financial services - how will data holding work and regulation?

8 Food standards - another major question.

9 ECJ - what role have they in this brave new Brexit?

A question posed to wonder how the details of these questions can be dealt with might balance the BBC's approach. Lord Reith must be turning in his grave.