Brexit Discussion Thread VI

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Well he has to present both sides of an argument but I've him looking puzzled a few times as things were explained to him.

He doesn't. He's meant to be balanced , that doesn't mean you interview Buzz Aldrin and then cut to a man to believes the moon is made of cheese.

Tell me how

EdgeCase wrote: »

If they think negotiating with the EU is difficult, try unpicking the Good Friday Agreement and putting it back together again. It would make Brexit seem like a walk in the park!

How anyone thinks the solution to resolving Brexit is undoing the Good Friday Agreement is beyond me.
It's jumping out of the frying pan and into the gaseous core of the sun, never mind the fire.

If they can't manage to negotiate with a very rational, facts-based multilateral organisation like the EU, I'm sure they'd have no problem whatsoever redoing the GFA with some of the chaos and dogma that makes up Northern Irish politics.

The fact that the NI Secretary wasn't even aware that unionists and nationalist didn't vote for each others' parties doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in their deep knowledge of the situation on the ground.

Their position is influenced, I feel, by a few simple things.

1. As you said yourself, many have no idea of the nuances of the north and do not relate to the issues there any more than they do Israel/Palenstine.
2. They have a certain c'est la vie to the potential of northern related terrorist attacks as they do with potential exposure to Islamic terrorist attacks.
3. Speakers such as JRM, Boris etc will never be exposed to the risks associated with a border.
4. If a border goes up, it is likely that violence will originate from nationalist side, if so, the Brexiteers can say it has nothing to do with them or the UK.

EdgeCase

First Up wrote: »

Well he has to present both sides of an argument but I've him looking puzzled a few times as things were explained to him.

I would say to bear in mind that good broadcasters will play 'devil's advocate' to try to ensure that any debate or discussion is balanced and that both/all perspectives are put forward.

You never take or present any kind of dogmatic position, but you will always try put counterpoints to a guest and not just let them do a party political broadcast or go on some kind of an unchallenged monologue. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with them, you have to ensure that you're probing what they're saying.

That does not imply that the broadcaster actually agrees / disagrees with the guest on a personal level.

It's also where the BBC has been failing miserably in recent months. They've too many presenters who are failing to challenge, largely Brexiteers, on statements that are simply not facts.

I'm more impressed with Sky News' political team than I am with the BBC at the moment. Faisal Islam and Beth Rigby are excellent and most of their anchors are displaying an ability to challenge anything and anyone. Sky were never tabloid and thankfully never morphed into a UK counterpart to Fox News, and are no longer anything to do with Murdock since the buy out by Comcast.

Boulton's choice of words may have been a bit harsh, but I don't think he was doing anything other than challenging a guest to justify their opinion.

Hurrache

That Murrison Amendment I mentioned yesterday, seems like there's more MPs now trying to push for that as a solution for both May and getting concessions from the EU.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1085110004812779520

And then this is just bizarre, although I'd hope that the poll was an online one which was manipulated by Brexiters.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1085104310684397568

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

He doesn't. He's meant to be balanced , that doesn't mean you interview Buzz Aldrin and then cut to a man to believes the moon is made of cheese.

The cheesy moon constituency makes up a significant part of the Brexit vote. He can't ignore them.

FreudianSlippers

Berserker wrote: »

By not accepting sh1t deals?? How dare they!!!! Show me where the UK has said that they want a hard border on the island? Your Irish republican bias is trying to generate a situation that simply doesn't exist.

Another person pretending the EU did this to the UK. :rolleyes:

It is now confirmed by both sides that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, there will need to be border checks - even for the UK to comply with WTO rules there will need to be border checks. "Want" has nothing to do with this.

Dyr

EdgeCase wrote: »

They're also making assumptions that the US is aware of the nuances of the UK or particularly cares. The special relationship they go on about, from my perspective anyway, seems to largely be one about the US using them as a rubber stamping / legitimisation service for various conflicts they jumped head first into.

If it came to a negotiation with the US, the UK would just have to do what it's told as it would have absolutely no bargaining power whatsoever and Trump likes nothing more than a weak negotiating partner who can be exploited. That's how he's run business and that's how he runs the country.
.

Ignoring Trump for a minute, the special relationship with the US was mostly predicated on Britain being America's boy in the EU, once they've put the kibosh on that the relationship may not be so special

Enzokk

EdgeCase wrote: »

I would say to bear in mind that good broadcasters will play 'devil's advocate' to try to ensure that any debate or discussion is balanced and that both/all perspectives are put forward.

You never take or present any kind of dogmatic position, but you will always try put counterpoints to a guest and not just let them do a party political broadcast or go on some kind of an unchallenged monologue. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with them, you have to ensure that you're probing what they're saying.

That does not imply that the broadcaster actually agrees / disagrees with the guest on a personal level.

It's also where the BBC has been failing miserably in recent months. They've too many presenters who are failing to challenge, largely Brexiteers, on statements that are simply not facts.

I'm more impressed with Sky News' political team than I am with the BBC at the moment. Faisal Islam and Beth Rigby are excellent and most of their anchors are displaying an ability to challenge anything and anyone. Sky were never tabloid and thankfully never morphed into a UK counterpart to Fox News, and are no longer anything to do with Murdock since the buy out by Comcast.

Boulton's choice of words may have been a bit harsh, but I don't think he was doing anything other than challenging a guest to justify their opinion.

If you look at the interview of the Dutch MEP by Channel 4 in one of the previous links that may not be the presenter airing his personal views but challenging the stance of the EU regarding Brexit. I have no idea if his personal views is exactly in line with his questioning but he did ask her the questions the other side would have wanted.

You can see a good interviewer by his questioning of politicians and one of the best is Andrew Neill but he doesn't let his personal views cloud his questioning in an interview. On Twitter you can see the difference where he is allowed to air his personal views free of having to maintain balance.

The problem with making your personal views known as a presenter is that you are under scrutiny and even a little let up in an interview will lead to accusations of bias.

Hurrache wrote: »

That Murrison Amendment I mentioned yesterday, seems like there's more MPs now trying to push for that as a solution for both May and getting concessions from the EU.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1085110004812779520

What happens if they pass the amendment with a time-limit of the backstop and it passes tonight? Theresa May then has to go back to the EU and tell them that the deal she agreed to earlier is now different and they needs to agree to this new deal. The EU would have given her a time limit if they could initially so the answer will be no new negotiations or time limits and then she has to go back to the HoC and get the deal passed without the amendment, right? Back to square one again?

Hurrache

Enzokk wrote: »

What happens if they pass the amendment with a time-limit of the backstop and it passes tonight? Theresa May then has to go back to the EU and tell them that the deal she agreed to earlier is now different and they needs to agree to this new deal. The EU would have given her a time limit if they could initially so the answer will be no new negotiations or time limits and then she has to go back to the HoC and get the deal passed without the amendment, right? Back to square one again?

It basically means they voted on a nonexistent deal, so a grand waste of everyone's time.

Tell me how

Enzokk wrote: »

You can see a good interviewer by his questioning of politicians and one of the best is Andrew Neill but he doesn't let his personal views cloud his questioning in an interview. On Twitter you can see the difference where he is allowed to air his personal views free of having to maintain balance.

Are you sure?

On This Week (the program) last Thursday night, Owen Jones doing a piece on the role of the media in the rise of the Far Right. Owen said that The Spectator (which Andrew is chairman of) played a role in this and it descended in to a shouting match where Andrew refused to let him speak about it.

Leroy42

The plan would be that TM going back to Europe with a passed bill would be enough to get the EU to shift its position.

The EU continually claim that the UK doesn't know what it wants and therefore there is no point giving any concessions as it would only to added to the base and more would be asked for.

TM would effectively be going back to Tusk and saying that if the EU move on the timelimit, then the deal will get passed and thus a No deal Brexit will be avoided. That will put the EU in a very difficult spot. Opt for a time limit, on a futire deal they all agree will eventually be done, or deal with a crash out, and a hard border.

Enzokk

Hurrache wrote: »

It basically means they voted on a nonexistent deal, so a grand waste of everyone's time.

Yeah, that is what I have as well. I am a little confused as to why this is not scrutinized more as passing the deal with amendments that alter the deal means they are changing the deal without the consent of the EU, and changing a deal unilaterally always works out for the party doing it.

As for some of the amendments tabled, the BBC have this article listing them.

Possible amendments to PM's Brexit deal

They have listed 10 so far so it will be interesting to see how many and who's goes forward to be voted on later.

Enzokk

Tell me how wrote: »

Are you sure?

On This Week (the program) last Thursday night, Owen Jones doing a piece on the role of the media in the rise of the Far Right. Owen said that The Spectator (which Andrew is chairman of) played a role in this and it descended in to a shouting match where Andrew refused to let him speak about it.

I realised after I posted it that this seems to have changed with Neil. Before Brexit he was the best interviewer out there not giving anyone a break and knowing the topic he is questioning the person on, but lately he seems to have lost the plot and he is allowing his personal views to interfere a little with his job.

So he used to be the best but like the BBC Brexit coverage it has gone all wrong. I think it is no coincidence that both the BBC and their high profile presenter is both losing the battle to remain impartial.

robinph

The EU could agree to a time limit of ending the backstop when the UK can come up with an alternative plan. As long as they don't agree to any particular date.

Basically a re-wording of what it already says.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

The plan would be that TM going back to Europe with a passed bill would be enough to get the EU to shift its position.

The EU continually claim that the UK doesn't know what it wants and therefore there is no point giving any concessions as it would only to added to the base and more would be asked for.

TM would effectively be going back to Tusk and saying that if the EU move on the timelimit, then the deal will get passed and thus a No deal Brexit will be avoided. That will put the EU in a very difficult spot. Opt for a time limit, on a futire deal they all agree will eventually be done, or deal with a crash out, and a hard border.

Yes, but that is what her letter was for, wasn't it? She was in contact with other EU leaders before the sent the letter and she knew the backstop was a problem for her MPs so she would have floated it to them that if they giver her a time limit she will get it through. Seeing as they haven't given her anything other than saying it is not intended to be permanent (but if it turns out that way it is what it is) they will not give her a time limit on the backstop and effectively the GFA.

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

TM would effectively be going back to Tusk and saying that if the EU move on the timelimit, then the deal will get passed and thus a No deal Brexit will be avoided. That will put the EU in a very difficult spot. Opt for a time limit, on a futire deal they all agree will eventually be done, or deal with a crash out, and a hard border.

How would TM be able to go to Tusk (the Council) directly without dealing with the Commission who are responsible for negotiating Brexit and formulating a deal? Or are you suggesting that there is a feeling that there is more scope for movement in the Council as opposed to the Commission?

Enzokk

robinph wrote: »

The EU could agree to a time limit of ending the backstop when the UK can come up with an alternative plan. As long as they don't agree to any particular date.

Basically a re-wording of what it already says.

They have done that and clarified it by saying the EU doesn't like the backstop and doesn't want it to be enacted. It is also only applicable when a new deal is negotiated that ensures it is not needed. They have re-worded it already when Barnier talked about softening the language around the border.

Leroy42

But they were never going to give her anything before the HoC even voted. Why she wasted 5 weeks is beyond me as nothing was achieved.

But if the vote passes with the amendment (not today but maybe in a few weeks), TM could offer the EU a final 'avoid no deal' offer.

Would Leo really opt for a chaotic No Deal brexit, with massive problems for ROI trade through the UK, not to mention having to erect a border with NI, rather than give a time limit? Maybe even something like 10 years?

Leroy42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How would TM be able to go to Tusk (the Council) directly without dealing with the Commission who are responsible for negotiating Brexit and formulating a deal? Or are you suggesting that there is a feeling that there is more scope for movement in the Council as opposed to the Commission?

Well, not technically, but at this stage this is political. If she went to tusk with a deal, would Tusk simply reject it and send her back to Barnier?

robinph

Enzokk wrote: »

They have done that and clarified it by saying the EU doesn't like the backstop and doesn't want it to be enacted. It is also only applicable when a new deal is negotiated that ensures it is not needed. They have re-worded it already when Barnier talked about softening the language around the border.

Precisely. The EU should agree to nothing.

Just throw the most recent text from the EU into a Yoda translator a few times to jumble the words around a bit and send it back to the UK again, but agree to nothing extra that the UK tries asking for.

I'm still hoping, in vain, that they call the whole thing off and stop screwing around with my life and business. But in the absence of that the EU mustn't fold.

Akrasia

Hurrache wrote: »

It basically means they voted on a nonexistent deal, so a grand waste of everyone's time.

It's actually ridiculous that they're even allowing amendments to the withdrawal agreement at this late stage.

Of course, it's totally TMs fault for withdrawing the vote last December. If she had taken her loss back then, at least all this faffing about would have happened already and they could have been getting on with the next round of faffing about.

If the UK go back to the EU and ask for an extension to A50 so TM can gather more party support for her deal she should be laughed out of the room. She was the one who delayed the vote in December, and then still took the full christmas break when there was a crisis developing. Her strategy was always to wind down the clock. Giving an extension to A50 just means she will spend even longer going around and around in circles.

A General Election will solve absolutely nothing if it results in another hung parliament and the two main parties are internally divided on their brexit policies. The only way to get this moving one way or another is to have a 2nd referendum. The majority of MPs are remainers but feel that they have to be brexiters because of the 'will of the people' at the last referendum. If a 2nd referendum has any decent majority to remain in the EU, that solves the problem for those MPs straight away, they can just vote to cancel the whole thing and move on. If a 2nd referendum chooses brexit, then the remain side will at least have been listened to and will back down and support a brexit deal.

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, not technically, but at this stage this is political. If she went to tusk with a deal, would Tusk simply reject it and send her back to Barnier?

The deal is the deal - any amendment at this stage would need to go back to Barnier (as lead negotiator) or, at a stretch, to Juncker (as President of the Commission). The Commission are the ones who need to approve this deal before it goes to the Council and I see no reason why why the EU would/could/should merely accept any movement on the deal without properly considering it.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

The plan would be that TM going back to Europe with a passed bill would be enough to get the EU to shift its position.

The EU continually claim that the UK doesn't know what it wants and therefore there is no point giving any concessions as it would only to added to the base and more would be asked for.

TM would effectively be going back to Tusk and saying that if the EU move on the timelimit, then the deal will get passed and thus a No deal Brexit will be avoided. That will put the EU in a very difficult spot. Opt for a time limit, on a futire deal they all agree will eventually be done, or deal with a crash out, and a hard border.

There is no acceptance that a future deal will be done to prevent a hard border. That's why there's a backstop. The UK's magical 'technological solution' is impractical and unworkable and both sides know it.


The EU already knows that the UK want to have their cake and eat it too. Parliament voting for a proposal that has already been soundly rejected by the EU will only piss off the EU even more. It would be a monumental waste of everyone's time.

The EU know the UK doesn't like the backstop, they know the UK want there to be a time limit, but the EU also know that if there is a time limit, it basically guarantees that the UK will do absolutely nothing to prevent a hard border and simply wait for the backstop to time out

Leroy42

Akrasia wrote: »

If a 2nd referendum chooses brexit, then the remain side will at least have been listened to and will back down and support a brexit deal.

Why would it be any different from the 1st ref. If remain does win, why wouldn't the Brexiteers demand a 3rd vote? Remain knew the process of the 1st vote. Whether it was through their own lack of engagement or the desire of the people, Leave won. It appears that the majority have accepted that decision.

So now they are faced with how best to deliver on that, TM's deal being on the best offer on the table.

A 2nd ref won't solve anything

Tell me how

Nigel Farage going to be speaking to Ivan Yates this evening.

Would rather it was Pat Kenny he was speaking to but I'll still listen in.

Christy42

robinph wrote: »

The EU could agree to a time limit of ending the backstop when the UK can come up with an alternative plan. As long as they don't agree to any particular date.

Basically a re-wording of what it already says.

That is already there. It ends when the UK and EU come to a new agreement over it. Suddenly all the magical unicorn technologies that were promised disappeared when this was pointed out.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they were never going to give her anything before the HoC even voted. Why she wasted 5 weeks is beyond me as nothing was achieved.

But if the vote passes with the amendment (not today but maybe in a few weeks), TM could offer the EU a final 'avoid no deal' offer.

Would Leo really opt for a chaotic No Deal brexit, with massive problems for ROI trade through the UK, not to mention having to erect a border with NI, rather than give a time limit? Maybe even something like 10 years?

In this game of chicken, there are no upsides for Ireland to accept a withdrawal agreement that tears up the good friday agreement.

It is better for there to be a No deal because at least that's possibly a temporary border and the NO deal scenario will precipitate negotiations to quickly resolve the chaos. If there is a deal without the backstop, then Ireland will be looking at a countdown towards the introduction of a hard border that could be more long term and could precipitate decades more conflict on the island of Ireland.

Leroy42

Ivan should star tof by asking him how he got so much of his pronouncements about how Brexit would go so wrong (he will blame TM) and then simply ask why he doesn't therefore advocate a halt to the whole thing until they are ready.

If he isn't challenged on his past pronouncements that the interview carries no credibility.

prawnsambo

Tell me how wrote: »

Nigel Farage going to be speaking to Ivan Yates this evening.

Would rather it was Pat Kenny he was speaking to but I'll still listen in.

Noooo!


Ivan Yates is probably the most clueless on the subject. He doesn't know the difference between teh SM and the CU or that they are both needed to keep the border open.

Tell me how

Questions for Nigel Farage (if you're reading Ivan. )

How come Brexit has not been as easy to deliver as you said it would be?
Were you aware the Leave campaign was overspending during the referendum campaign?
Do you still think there should be a second referendum (as he said previously on Andrew Marr show)?
What do you think should happen if the deal is rejected this evening?