Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Baggly

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There are plenty of interviews/tv spots with government ministers that back the WA. TM is on the news every day.

It's not realistic for every broadcaster to have 10 guests, three arguing for a second referendum, two arguing to withdraw art. 50, two for an EEA exit, two for no deal and one for the WA.

Every view should be heard and is it not up to people to determine whether what they are saying is nonsense or not.

I think the start of your post contradicts the end of your post. How can you have lots of views heard if fielding even 10 guests isnt realistic? Who decides who gets to speak?

Tell me how

Havockk wrote: »

That thread is incredible. This is the same woman whom Neil, the flagship BBC host, calls a 'crazy woman' and 'Karol Kodswallop'. Starting to look more like a coup.

I read that his morning and kept thinking that if you watched such a plot on television you would be entertained and find it a bit fanciful but here it is, happening right now, in real life, influencing dark consequences for many.

What is troubling is the relatively small amount of attention Carol's whole work has gotten. She should be given a special Panorama Investigates commission for a 2 or 3 part series exposing this whole sorry mess and she is largely limited to talking about it on Twitter.

Look at the awards she has won for this work and yet the subject matter at the centre of each award has not been discussed by the major media players.

British Journalism Awards’ Technology Journalism Award in December 2017.
The Orwell Prize for political journalism in June 2018 (for her work "on the impact of big data on the EU Referendum and the 2016 US presidential election")
The Reporters without Borders "L’esprit de RSF" award in November 2018 (for her work on subversion of democratic processes).
Political Studies Association Journalist of the Year in November 2018 (joint award with Amelia Gentleman) for her persistence and resilience in pursuing "investigative journalism on subjects such as personal data"

Akrasia

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But here's the thing about balance in the media - It's usually not balanced.

As an example - Climate change.

If you wanted to have a truly "balanced" climate change debate then it should be set up with 1 person on the "Climate change denier" side and 9 on the "No , it's real" side as that is truly reflective of the realistic state of the world.

So where's the balance in the current debate around the deal/no-deal?

The No-Deal people account for a very small % of the HOC (maybe 20%) , so a Media debate should probably me something like a 4:1 ratio in support of a deal of some kind. Not equal , not at all.

TL;DR - Giving alternative opinions a voice in the discussion is all well and good , but that should not mean that they are given a equal weight to the majority opinions.. Each position should be given the time and space based on their actual levels of support..

Giving every crack-pot "equal" time just skews reality..

In the good old romantic days of the media, print journalism, where Journalists were investigators who compiled a story in order to get to an objective truth, the onus was on the investigator to follow leads, check sources from every angle of the story, interview people with different perspectives to arrive at what is as close to 'the facts' as is reasonable to expect. They were expected to inform the public first, and then entertain.

Now the vast majority of the 'media' is unfiltered interviews and opinions direct to the public. There is usually a 'moderator' who should hold the interviewees to account, but there is very rarely any real time fact checking or even post interview corrections to the accounts given during the interview.

The listeners/viewers are expected to 'make up their own minds' based on the accounts given in the 'balanced' debate they just heard, but that's a very unfair standard. How is an uninformed audience supposed to decide which contradictory statements they have just listened to are factually true? The answer is that they often believe what fits into their pre-existing world view, or believe passionate and emotional appeals above expert opinion.

I think the media should be refocused onto it's primary purpose, to inform. And the press regulators should be much more involved with media outlets who deliberately misinform the pubic either directly, or through loading their interview panels with individuals who have proven themselves to be dishonest and to distort the facts and allowing them to lie without correcting the record on air within a reasonable time of the interview.

Just as other industries are regulated and have to meet minimum standards and must have entire quality assurance mechanisms in place before they're allowed to sell their product to the public, media who have access to the public airways should be legally required to have fact checkers employed and working during any current affairs or politics broadcasts who are legally obliged to check factual statements made by the hosts and interviews to ensure that they are not false and misleading statements.

Havockk

Akrasia wrote: »

In the good old romantic days of the media, print journalism, where Journalists were investigators who compiled a story in order to get to an objective truth, the onus was on the investigator to follow leads, check sources from every angle of the story, interview people with different perspectives to arrive at what is as close to 'the facts' as is reasonable to expect. They were expected to inform the public first, and then entertain.

Now the vast majority of the 'media' is unfiltered interviews and opinions direct to the public. There is usually a 'moderator' who should hold the interviewees to account, but there is very rarely any real time fact checking or even post interview corrections to the accounts given during the interview.

The listeners/viewers are expected to 'make up their own minds' based on the accounts given in the 'balanced' debate they just heard, but that's a very unfair standard. How is an uninformed audience supposed to decide which contradictory statements they have just listened to are factually true? The answer is that they often believe what fits into their pre-existing world view, or believe passionate and emotional appeals above expert opinion.

I think the media should be refocused onto it's primary purpose, to inform. And the press regulators should be much more involved with media outlets who deliberately misinform the pubic either directly, or through loading their interview panels with individuals who have proven themselves to be dishonest and to distort the facts and allowing them to lie without correcting the record on air within a reasonable time of the interview.

Just as other industries are regulated and have to meet minimum standards and must have entire quality assurance mechanisms in place before they're allowed to sell their product to the public, media who have access to the public airways should be legally required to have fact checkers employed and working during any current affairs or politics broadcasts who are legally obliged to check factual statements made by the hosts and interviews to ensure that they are not false and misleading statements.

The problem is capitalism. How can a fair media, remain balanced in the current climate?

RobMc59

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/germany-sees-flat-growth-in-the-fourth-quarter-.html
I've got a terrible feeling that as Germany,the powerhouse in Europe stutters,it may break ranks over the backstop which will allow the awful TM deal to go through.

Akrasia

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It would be fair to say that the post referendum effect on the UK has not been as pronounced as predicted and this hasn't helped with the credibility of those that argue for the UK to remain.

The question will be whether the UK suffers a an immediate visible setback or whether the damage to the UK is in the form of missed opportunities. If it's the latter, it's much easier to live with.

Predicting the future is notoriously difficult but people can identify trends

I can say that in the medium term future there will almost certainly be self driving vehicles commonplace on our roads but if I predict that 'within 10 years there will be hardly any taxi drivers left in Ireland' that's a prediction that is justified, but very difficult to stand over when you consider the variables involved in the equation.

The goalposts constantly move, by definition, in politics. When people predicted economic harm from the vote to leave the EU, they did so on a 'all else being equal' basis. Of course, all else isn't equal, it is extremely reactive, so when the GBP collapsed by 30% and immigration into the UK ground to a stand still, this had the effects of reducing unemployment and increasing exports and boosting the economy which masked the harm from the capital and investment flight as a result of the political uncertainty.

You need to compare what would have been expected to happen to the UK economy if they had deliberately cut the value of the GBP by the same amount that it has fallen by a consequence of brexit. If there had been a deliberate devaluation, the consequences should have been an immediate boost to the domestic economy which would have been expected to have been much higher growth than the 'well the economy hasn't collapsed yet' analysis from the brexiteers who try to discount the predictions of remainers.

And of course, brexit hasn't happened yet. So all of the worst outcomes predicted by brexiteer economists are still not manifest. Most of the negative consequences happen because of barriers to trade and free movement and access to international institutions.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/germany-sees-flat-growth-in-the-fourth-quarter-.html
I've got a terrible feeling that as Germany,the powerhouse in Europe stutters,it may break ranks over the backstop which will allow the awful TM deal to go through.

I'm finding this narrative to be tedious beyond words at this stage.

If Germany stutters, how exactly does bending over backwards for the disaster capitalists of the ERG fix anything?

lawred2

RobMc59 wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/germany-sees-flat-growth-in-the-fourth-quarter-.html
I've got a terrible feeling that as Germany,the powerhouse in Europe stutters,it may break ranks over the backstop which will allow the awful TM deal to go through.

Not the first time someone on here has had those 'feelings' and each and every time they have been utterly disconstructed for the fanciful nonsense that it is...

We keep waiting though...

Do you genuinely think Germany is going to whip 26 other parliaments into line?

I think you've been on this thread long enough to have some sort of an understanding of how the EU functions right?

Zubeneschamali

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There are plenty of interviews/tv spots with government ministers that back the WA. TM is on the news every day.

In case you missed it, May not only voted against the WA, she whipped her party to vote against it.

Akrasia

Havockk wrote: »

The problem is capitalism. How can a fair media, remain balanced in the current climate?

It's not just capitalism though. Look at all the capitalist enterprises that have regulated quality control.

You can't sell medicine to the public unless you have all the QA and QC certifications 100% recorded and accurate and up to date. One single incident where quality assurance cannot be proven results in the entire batch being recalled and a very serious investigation which may prevent any future batches from being released.

I'm not saying the media should have this level of regulation, but when their product is public information, it is not unreasonable to expect that information to be true.

The media regulator has rules on decency and defamation, but not truth.

Rather than censoring views and preventing individuals with poor records relating to honesty from accessing the media, the media should be obliged to check their factual statements in real time and either contradict lies directly to them, or very quickly following the interview ending.

Tell me how

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In case you missed it, May not only voted against the WA, she whipped her party to vote against it.

Was it not the case that she voted against a proposed amendment as part of her strategy to leave just two choices on the table. No Deal or Her deal.

I'm not saying that it was a wise strategy, or that it is going to be successful, but, I feel pretty sure that she is currently in that phase where she is no longer panicking or stressing. She has done what she could, it's up to some form of fate to see if it will be successful or not.

I'm 99.9% confident that if she does not get her deal over the line before the 29th of March, she will step aside. Whether she calls a GE, revokes article 50 or just walks and says the country needs a different voice I don't know.

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

Not the first time someone on here has had those 'feelings' and each and every time they have been utterly disconstructed for the fanciful nonsense that it is...

We keep waiting though...

Do you genuinely think Germany is going to whip 26 other parliaments into line?

I think you've been on this thread long enough to have some sort of an understanding of how the EU functions right?

Exactly and even if they were to do so it would be proving everything the likes of Farage and the ERG have been spouting has been true and therefore be the ultimate death of the EU as a result which would cost them even more in the long run.

Havockk

Tell me how wrote: »

Was it not the case that she voted against a proposed amendment as part of her strategy to leave just two choices on the table. No Deal or Her deal.

I'm not saying that it was a wise strategy, or that it is going to be successful, but, I feel pretty sure that she is currently in that phase where she is no longer panicking or stressing. She has done what she could, it's up to some form of fate to see if it will be successful or not.

I'm 99.9% confident that if she does not get her deal over the line before the 29th of March, she will step aside. Whether she calls a GE, revokes article 50 or just walks and says the country needs a different voice I don't know.

Would a GE even fix it? I'm not sure it will solve anything and a lot of people realised long ago this was a full-blown constitutional crisis. The UK has to actually fix itself and no one is even having the conversation yet. So I expect this could well drag on for a few years, but it's only just starting now.

LuckyLloyd

Havockk wrote: »

That thread is incredible. This is the same woman whom Neil, the flagship BBC host, calls a 'crazy woman' and 'Karol Kodswallop'. Starting to look more like a coup.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason." - Sir John Harington

Kermit.de.frog

Can you believe that the Brexit Secretary in the British government is still bringing this up.

SNIP. No more memes.

I don't think they are negotiating at all. It's all for show by the Tory government.

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

Was it not the case that she voted against a proposed amendment as part of her strategy to leave just two choices on the table. No Deal or Her deal.

Whatever her strategy was or is, in effect she whipped her own party to vote against a deal she had negotiated and up until that morning had said was the only option available.

And since then she has done nothing to actually act on the vote. So what does that signal to the EU? That they are not dealing with an honest broker in TM, they cannot trust anything she agrees to.

Tell me how

Havockk wrote: »

Would a GE even fix it? I'm not sure it will solve anything and a lot of people realised long ago this was a full-blown constitutional crisis. The UK has to actually fix itself and no one is even having the conversation yet. So I expect this could well drag on for a few years, but it's only just starting now.

A GE definitely would not fix anything other than allow a new group to blame the previous government.
It would definitely drag it out for at least another 3 years which is why the brexiteers are terrified that their dream is so close but that they might lose it.
They really want a No Deal on the 29th of March even if that means anarchy and upheaval. Because, then, at least they will be out.

An extension, cancellation of A50 or any form of delay makes it more likely that there will be a second vote and while many might vote to leave to uphold the principle of democracy having to be followed, surely more would have changed their mind.

But, if May goes on the 19th of March, without having had her deal accepted and without calling a GE or revoking A50, she will never be forgiven for having abandoned them when it was too late to change something. I don't think she would do that. Maybe she would wait until the 30th of March and then do a David Cameron, but I am not so sure either. Maybe it is more likely though.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whatever her strategy was or is, in effect she whipped her own party to vote against a deal she had negotiated and up until that morning had said was the only option available.

And since then she has done nothing to actually act on the vote. So what does that signal to the EU? That they are not dealing with an honest broker in TM, they cannot trust anything she agrees to.

I agree in how she is perceived and the strongest most agreed accusation against her is that she has acted as she has done purely to maintain control for the Tories.

but, if she actually truly believes Brexit has to be delivered (because of referendum result) and that her deal is the only option, then how could she have acted any differently.

If she really wanted a No Deal scenario, surely she would be playing to the gallery so that at least she would look like she was making demands of the EU.

As it stands, she is not getting any support from any side and I'm wondering why would she expose herself to that.

listermint

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree in how she is perceived and the strongest most agreed accusation against her is that she has acted as she has done purely to maintain control for the Tories.

but, if she actually truly believes Brexit has to be delivered (because of referendum result) and that her deal is the only option, then how could she have acted any differently.

If she really wanted a No Deal scenario, surely she would be playing to the gallery so that at least she would look like she was making demands of the EU.

As it stands, she is not getting any support from any side and I'm wondering why would she expose herself to that.

guy verhofstadt has indicated just this though, that the UK negotiators are not around, are not holding any meetings with the EU reps 40 odd days out of what is supposed to be a crucial time whilst at home May is talking about getting concessions.

She is very much playing to the Gallery

An Ciarraioch

listermint wrote: »

guy verhofstadt has indicated just this though, that the UK negotiators are not around, are not holding any meetings with the EU reps 40 odd days out of what is supposed to be a crucial time whilst at home May is talking about getting concessions.

She is very much playing to the Gallery

Interestingly, he's meeting Corbyn next week - presumably to tell him how to tweak his plan to avoid the need for a backstop:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/14/corbyn-to-hold-brexit-talks-with-barnier-and-verhofstadt-next-week

Tell me how

listermint wrote: »

guy verhofstadt has indicated just this though, that the UK negotiators are not around, are not holding any meetings with the EU reps 40 odd days out of what is supposed to be a crucial time whilst at home May is talking about getting concessions.

She is very much playing to the Gallery

I think she is playing to the gallery so as to try to get her deal through.
I think if she truly wanted a No deal, her tune would be different.

listermint

Tell me how wrote: »

I think she is playing to the gallery so as to try to get her deal through.
I think if she truly wanted a No deal, her tune would be different.

In what way specifically ?

I mean we can all see she is playing a dangerous game, but it appears the outcome of either is appetible

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

Not the first time someone on here has had those 'feelings' and each and every time they have been utterly disconstructed for the fanciful nonsense that it is...

We keep waiting though...

Do you genuinely think Germany is going to whip 26 other parliaments into line?

I think you've been on this thread long enough to have some sort of an understanding of how the EU functions right?

Everyday there is fanciful nonsense about a dystopian "mad max" post hard brexit UK.
And yes,I've been on the thread long enough to have some sort of understanding of things -no offense personally but where I come from if you give it you've got to be able to take it.

Imo,It is possible to think the EU is generally a good thing but not swallow every decree "hook line and sinker"-I have no axe to grind and using the formula which seems most prevalent (what's in it for me),brexit isn't remotely in my interests.

Zubeneschamali

Tell me how wrote: »

Was it not the case that she voted against a proposed amendment as part of her strategy to leave just two choices on the table. No Deal or Her deal.

No.


She voted for the Brady amendment and whipped her party to vote for it.


The Brady amendment tells the Govt to re-open the WA and replace the backstop with "alternative arrangements".


So May voted against the existing WA, and whipped her party to vote against it.


(Of course they don't actually have any alternative in mind, and the EU said Nope within 10 minutes of the vote).

Tell me how

listermint wrote: »

In what way specifically ?

I mean we can all see she is playing a dangerous game, but it appears the outcome of either is appetible

I think she would be giving speeches which would directly suggest that the EU are trying to be unresonable so as to punish the UK for leaving. She would be using some of the same rhetoric that others are using knowing that it would play well in the English media. She would be saying that it shows that the EU has gained too much power if the consequences for leaving are destruction for a countries economy.

None of this would necessarily be true (not by a long shot) but if she was happy with leaving with No Deal, she might as well say it and implore UK citizens to stand up for their country.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm finding this narrative to be tedious beyond words at this stage.

If Germany stutters, how exactly does bending over backwards for the disaster capitalists of the ERG fix anything?

I agree,the likes of Mogg and co.are bringing Britain to the brink of ruin and personally (perhaps forlornly now)would like article 50 revoked.
I do think each country within the EU has its own agenda though and as a remainer genuinely hope the EU remains united as I have no desire for the TM deal to be accepted.

Macy0161

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interestingly, he's meeting Corbyn next week - presumably to tell him how to tweak his plan to avoid the need for a backstop:

Corbyn's plan already solves the backstop issue. A customs union means no need for the backstop.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree,the likes of Mogg and co.are bringing Britain to the brink of ruin and personally (perhaps forlornly now)would like article 50 revoked.
I do think each country within the EU has its own agenda though and as a remainer genuinely hope the EU remains united as I have no desire for the TM deal to be accepted.

Assuming that the UK does not remain, what do you want to happen in that scenario?

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

Everyday there is fanciful nonsense about a dystopian "mad max" post hard brexit UK.
And yes,I've been on the thread long enough to have some sort of understanding of things -no offense personally but where I come from if you give it you've got to be able to take it.

Imo,It is possible to think the EU is generally a good thing but not swallow every decree "hook line and sinker"-I have no axe to grind and using the formula which seems most prevalent (what's in it for me),brexit isn't remotely in my interests.

What?

Fanciful nonsense? So you dismiss all the economic forecasts even though in large part they are starting to happen? That jobs are being lost. Investment is way down. The Pound has devalued yet no apparent increase in exports?

Do you think the ideas being put forward about the possible issues with transport and shipping is simply made up? Even though the UK government itself has entered into contracts for additional ferry services. They have stockpiled medicines. They have planned truck parking sites.

Skelet0n

Do yourselves a favour and watch Sammy Wilson trying to correct the SNP on the GFA.

https://twitter.com/robdunsmore/status/1096047763597479936?s=21