Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Adamcp898

Tell me how wrote: »

Current affairs topics are discussed at any time irrespective of the time of day. We don't need to warm ourselves up to be able to handle them if we are the type of person who actively tunes in to a station which covers them.

If you listened to Vincent walls show on Newstalk from 06:30, he goes straight in to discussing some very heavy business topics.

Anyone tuning in to a show on the above station with Humphries presenting can reasonably expect that all topics are discussed appropriately.

Yes and "heavy" business topics as you call them have a much larger relevance to any listenership than the finer points of riot control. If people were subjected to a 15 minute slot on how to control your local Brexit riot they'd be switching stations because it is of very little interest, and much less relevance, to them.

How is that such an outlandish point of view?

Tell me how

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Yes and "heavy" business topics as you call them have a much larger relevance to any listenership than the finer points of riot control. If people were subjected to a 15 minute slot on how to control your local Brexit riot they'd be switching stations because it is of very little interest, and much less relevance, to them.

How is that such an outlandish point of view?

Because people are tuning in to that station and that presenter to hear detailed analysis of key topics.

This isn't Spin South West's '5 word weather'.

Leroy42

Adamcp898 wrote: »

It's a morning radio show, hardly a place for the discussion of the theory of riot control.

His response had the desired result of inviting his guest to reaffirm his point or brush it off as an off-the-cuff remark, thereby clearing it up for his listeners. Hardly something to start hand-wringing over and the big bad BBC media bias.

It is one of R4 flagship shows. It is there specifically to discuss these types of issues.

His guest did say he could give detail, to which John didn't bother to follow up. One can only assume that John didn't really want to know the detail.

So he clearly had his mind made up that despite asking this person on a guest to talk about Brexit preparations, he didn't agree that he knew what he was talking about.

It is not hand-ringing, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. But it is yet another example of the soft nature that the BBC are giving to the Brexit debate.

Look at the way that Diane Abbott has been torn apart for lacking detailed numbers, how Labour are continually mocked for having no descernible Brexit plan. I don't disagree with this (although sometimes the tone) but they are public figures trying to propose their solutions and thus deserve to be questioned. But it is never the same for Brexiteers. They are allowed to talk in generalities, in vague notions, in hopes for the future. What trade deals, how will the extra customs officers be paid for, where is the money coming to fund Brexit planning.

And this interview shows, yet again, that they want to stay away from the negative sides of Brexit. Focus on the possible benefits, even when the present difficulties are actually effecting real people.

Will that interview make any difference? No.

Leroy42

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Yes and "heavy" business topics as you call them have a much larger relevance to any listenership than the finer points of riot control. If people were subjected to a 15 minute slot on how to control your local Brexit riot they'd be switching stations because it is of very little interest, and much less relevance, to them.

How is that such an outlandish point of view?

But he then shouldn't simply laugh it off. Fine, they don't want to do into detail, but he clearly laughs it off. Nothing to see here, this man is talking nonsense "sure, how would you even plan for it". The guest then gives him brief summary of how you would.

So which is it? Should we not listen to the guest because he didn't give a detailed breakdown, or that a detailed breakdown is not appropriate for the time slot?

Adamcp898

Tell me how wrote: »

Because people are tuning in to that station and that presenter to hear detailed analysis of key topics.

This isn't Spin South West's '5 word weather'.

Yes and show me a broad demographic of any radio station, like Radio 4, to which this would be considered a key topic?

Not least why would you decide to do it around a topic such as Brexit anyway unless you wanted to scare the 50 something year old population of Britain into boarding up their windows.

The poster I replied to was suggesting that Humphrys was being entirely dismissive of the idea, I countered that he could simply be confirming the guests point for the benefit of his listenership. I would hardly think a journalist who has had a career as long as Humphrys would find the idea of planning for crowd control to be entirely unbelievable.

Kermit.de.frog

This is not the most tactful tweet I have ever seen.

https://twitter.com/EU_Taxud/status/1093511086563885056

This is what the "solidarity" is going to cost us soon.

prawnsambo

I find it extraordinary how politicians in Westminster STILL haven't realised how close they are to the end and are just assuming that everyone is going to row in behind them and reward their procrastination with an article 50 extension. John McDonnell of Labour is now saying that a new referendum will be necessary if they can't come to an agreement. This is deluded thinking. They may well call for one, but the time for having one is long past. And assuming that this call comes at the eleventh hour (now to 29th March), it can only happen with an article 50 extension which is by no means a given. The massive problem for the EU is how that would impact the Euro elections and completely take the focus off them, while at the same time, introduce the knotty problem of what to do about said elections in the UK.

At some point (although I despair of this happening), Westminster needs to stop navel gazing and actually do the job they were elected to do. They keep looking to the rest of Europe to rescue them from the pit that they've dug themselves into and are taking no responsibility for their dysfunctional behaviour.

murphaph

Humphreys has been really poor on Brexit. I've assumed for quite a while that he is a leave supporter.

Tell me how

murphaph wrote: »

Humphreys has been really poor on Brexit. I've assumed for quite a while that he is a leave supporter.

IT was he who asked Helen McEntee why don't Ireland throw in their lot with the UK.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but it is hard to look at the subtle way they present things and not actually believe that there is a persistent bias.

Which made it all the more laughable that on Question Time last night, Michael Forsyth said that the Irish Border was only an issue because the BBC made it one.

Adamcp898

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is one of R4 flagship shows. It is there specifically to discuss these types of issues.

His guest did say he could give detail, to which John didn't bother to follow up. One can only assume that John didn't really want to know the detail.

So he clearly had his mind made up that despite asking this person on a guest to talk about Brexit preparations, he didn't agree that he knew what he was talking about.

It is not hand-ringing, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. But it is yet another example of the soft nature that the BBC are giving to the Brexit debate.

Look at the way that Diane Abbott has been torn apart for lacking detailed numbers, how Labour are continually mocked for having no descernible Brexit plan. I don't disagree with this (although sometimes the tone) but they are public figures trying to propose their solutions and thus deserve to be questioned. But it is never the same for Brexiteers. They are allowed to talk in generalities, in vague notions, in hopes for the future. What trade deals, how will the extra customs officers be paid for, where is the money coming to fund Brexit planning.

And this interview shows, yet again, that they want to stay away from the negative sides of Brexit. Focus on the possible benefits, even when the present difficulties are actually effecting real people.

Will that interview make any difference? No.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But he then shouldn't simply laugh it off. Fine, they don't want to do into detail, but he clearly laughs it off. Nothing to see here, this man is talking nonsense "sure, how would you even plan for it". The guest then gives him brief summary of how you would.

So which is it? Should we not listen to the guest because he didn't give a detailed breakdown, or that a detailed breakdown is not appropriate for the time slot?

I think you're missing the point though. Of course it would be relevant to talk about why you might need to plan for civil unrest, but it's an entirely different discussion to talk about the finer points of how you actually deal with civil unrest. The former being of much more relevance to the average Radio 4 listener right now of course.

Without having listened to the whole interview I can't say for certain, but I'm speculating that the guest wasn't invited on to educate the listenership on how to control riots, he was brought on to discuss the civil service's role in Brexit planning and to that end the discussion would've been moved on.

CelticRambler

Peregrinus wrote: »

I grant you that there may be other small enterprises who export to the UK and not further, and there may be very many of these, as against relatively few but much larger enterprises that export more widely. So if you simply tot up numbers of business, there may be more business that suffer from a loss of UK exports than there are business that suffer from a loss of EU-26 exports.

From personal experience, I know that there are some people in business - even in Ireland - that cannot see beyond the end of their own nose. One close friend (connected to a factory in Donegal, as it happens) thinks that it'd probably be better to throw our lot in with the UK, because they primarily export a specific component to UK and non-EU manufacturers. This is essentially their only raison d'être, so they're worried that a No-Deal Brexit will hobble their trade with the UK. The fact that their biggest UK customer is actually a division of an EU-based multinational (one of the ones threatening to pull out) and that the others trade under EU/Rest-of-the-World FTAs goes completely over their head. I imagine that if there's one such person in my circle, there's easily at least 10% in the population as a whole. Some people just cannot see "the bigger picture."

Imreoir2

alloywheel wrote: »

Its our biggest trading partner,is it not? That is as expected, given its size and proximity to us, and is our neighbouring island. Irish food and drink exports remain heavily reliant on the UK market despite attempts to diversify ahead of Brexit. Last year Bord Bia’s export performance report indicated that the UK accounted for 35 per cent of exports, worth €4.5 billion, in 2017, down from 37 per cent the previous year.

The UK is not our biggest trading partner, it's not even our second biggest trading partner.

The Huffington Post has a list of what is being asked of Trump by lobbyists in a future deal.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-us-lobbyists-want-donald-trump-to-get-from-the-uk-in-a-post-brexit-trade-deal_uk_5c5b26c6e4b00187b5579f64

I don't know which is more shocking; The details of the list, or the fact that Americans don't even complain about their standards being so low.

VinLieger

murphaph wrote: »

Humphreys has been really poor on Brexit. I've assumed for quite a while that he is a leave supporter.

His questioning of Helen McEntee from a few weeks ago was absolutely shambolic journalism and shows how past it he is.

lawred2

Adamcp898 wrote: »

It's a morning radio show, hardly a place for the discussion of the theory of riot control.

His response had the desired result of inviting his guest to reaffirm his point or brush it off as an off-the-cuff remark, thereby clearing it up for his listeners. Hardly something to start hand-wringing over and the big bad BBC media bias.

lol

when is the best time?

a time that best facilitates the ostriches burying their head in the Brexit sands of delusion? like 3AM or something?

Adamcp898

lawred2 wrote: »

lol

when is the best time?

a time that best facilitates the ostriches burying their head in the Brexit sands of delusion? like 3AM or something?

Another tremendous contribution, well done :rolleyes:


But you feel that the flagship programme, on a radio station with as large a demographic as BBC Radio 4's, should be devoted to educating the populace on the finer points of how to plan for a riot? Keep in mind we're not talking about why the riot may occur or the events which lead to it, we're talking about the nuts and bolts of security planning.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

The Huffington Post has a list of what is being asked of Trump by lobbyists in a future deal.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-us-lobbyists-want-donald-trump-to-get-from-the-uk-in-a-post-brexit-trade-deal_uk_5c5b26c6e4b00187b5579f64

I don't know which is more shocking; The details of the list, or the fact that Americans don't even complain about their standards being so low.

This also shows the absolute necessity for why we should have a hard border if they go no deal.

Tell me how

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Another tremendous contribution, well done :rolleyes:


But you feel that the flagship programme, on a radio station with as large a demographic as BBC Radio 4's, should be devoted to educating the populace on the finer points of how to plan for a riot? Keep in mind we're not talking about why the riot may occur or the events which lead to it, we're talking about the nuts and bolts of security planning.

If you can't understand the relevance of letting people know just what such planning would entail in the context of the wider discussion then I don't know why you would be listening to stations like Radio 4.

Fast forward 3 months to riots ongoing and someone saying "Why didn't we know that their riot planning was inadequate".

Not discussing it seems like wilful ignorance of the realities of the situation.

Like the BBC last October having an Irish person on a politics show and when they brought up the border, they were told, "don't worry about that, there'll be loads of time to talk about that" as they went to show a lady who had her fingernails painted to show the UK flag.

trellheim

Where is tonights dinner with Leo and Theresa on ?

Leroy42

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Another tremendous contribution, well done :rolleyes:


But you feel that the flagship programme, on a radio station with as large a demographic as BBC Radio 4's, should be devoted to educating the populace on the finer points of how to plan for a riot? Keep in mind we're not talking about why the riot may occur or the events which lead to it, we're talking about the nuts and bolts of security planning.

No, you have decided that that is the telling part of the interview. You have made the point that its not the right time, that the people don't want to hear.

But even without detail, surely any reasonable journalist should be aghast at a government actively preparing for riots on the streets. But he isn't. He simply laughs it off.

So when do you think people should be informed? During the campaign maybe? During the negotiations? Maybe with less than 2 months to go?

Or do you feel that talking about what the government is planning is not required to be explained to the public?

lawred2

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Another tremendous contribution, well done :rolleyes:


But you feel that the flagship programme, on a radio station with as large a demographic as BBC Radio 4's, should be devoted to educating the populace on the finer points of how to plan for a riot? Keep in mind we're not talking about why the riot may occur or the events which lead to it, we're talking about the nuts and bolts of security planning.

you're constructing a strawman though

'The theory of riot control', 'the finer points', 'the nuts and bolts'

Those are your terms...

Has anyone actually said that the presenter should have turned the interview into a college lecture? No, not really. Not at all in fact.

Jovially making light of such a statement from a senior civil servant and brushing the topic off is a loooong way from resisting turning the segment into a seminar..

but like every other Brexit related topic - everything is either black or white

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The Huffington Post has a list of what is being asked of Trump by lobbyists in a future deal.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-us-lobbyists-want-donald-trump-to-get-from-the-uk-in-a-post-brexit-trade-deal_uk_5c5b26c6e4b00187b5579f64

I don't know which is more shocking; The details of the list, or the fact that Americans don't even complain about their standards being so low.

One thing I will never understand is how:

Britain scraps its safety-first approach to safety and food standards


Can ever be argued against? How do you sell that to people?

Laois_Man

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is not the most tactful tweet I have ever seen.

https://twitter.com/EU_Taxud/status/1093511086563885056

This is what the "solidarity" is going to cost us soon.

Been hearing that for 25-years.....and counting!

Adamcp898

Tell me how wrote: »

If you can't understand the relevance of letting people know just what such planning would entail in the context of the wider discussion then I don't know why you would be listening to Radio 4.

Fast forward 3 months to riots ongoing and someone saying "Why didn't we know that their riot planning was inadequate".

Not discussing it seems like wilful ignorance of the realities of the situation.

Like the BBC last October having an Irish person on a politics show and when they brought up the border, they were told, "don't worry about that, there'll be loads of time to talk about that" as they went to show a lady who had her fingernails painted to show the UK flag.

Can we stop talking about Radio 4 as if it is the pinnacle of intellectual discourse or some such, seriously?

If you can't figure out that outlining the "how to" of riot control preparations was not the reason the guest was on the show then you're either spoiling for an argument or just blinded by your own ignorance.

Good lord.

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is not the most tactful tweet I have ever seen.

https://twitter.com/EU_Taxud/status/1093511086563885056

This is what the "solidarity" is going to cost us soon.

How so? People really need to educate themselves on how the EU works. When it comes to changes to the treaties, no one can force a country to agree. The EU may want something, but unless it convinces the memberstates to support it, it does not happen. This is the simple reality, and comments suggesting that Ireland or any member state can somehow be forced to accept a treaty change it does not agree with is misleading and unhelpful to discussion.

Laois_Man

Tell me how wrote: »

IT was he who asked Helen McEntee why don't Ireland throw in their lot with the UK.

I am always glad to see one of them, be in McEntee, Varadkar or Coveney, asked on UK TV or Radio these questions. Like that one, or the even better one about how 50% of our trade is with the UK. I welcome every opportunity one of them has to put the record straight on this.

It still doesn't appear to be sinking in though!

Tell me how

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Can we stop talking about Radio 4 as if it is the pinnacle of intellectual discourse or some such, seriously?

If you can't figure out that outlining the "how to" of riot control preparations was not the reason the guest was on the show then you're either spoiling for an argument or just blinded by your own ignorance.

Good lord.

You're right. Let's just stick to the headlines. That's what everyone wants and needs.

To hell with this project fear malarkey.

Laois_Man

Imreoir2 wrote: »

How so? People really need to educate themselves on how the EU works. When it comes to changes to the treaties, no one can force a country to agree. The EU may want something, but unless it convinces the memberstates to support it, it does not happen. This is the simple reality, and comments suggesting that Ireland or any member state can somehow be forced to accept a treaty change it does not agree with is misleading and unhelpful to discussion.

THIS!

And it also never gets pointed out that the EU simply has no choice on backing us. They surveyed the positions of all 27 member states and took the negotiating position that all would agree to. Permitting a hard border in Ireland was always going to be vetoed by Ireland - therefore, they did not have the authority to negotiate one!

Leroy42

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Can we stop talking about Radio 4 as if it is the pinnacle of intellectual discourse or some such, seriously?

If you can't figure out that outlining the "how to" of riot control preparations was not the reason the guest was on the show then you're either spoiling for an argument or just blinded by your own ignorance.

Good lord.

If a senior civil servant came on to Morning Ireland, or Newstalk or anywhere and said that the Irish government were actively planning for riots on the streets would you expect the interviewer to just simply laugh it off?

Sometimes news stories just happen. An interview takes a turn from the original planned. You seem to be suggesting that it is perfectly reasonable for a journalist to simply ignore what is quite a staggering piece of information, because it was not part of the plan?

Adamcp898

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, you have decided that that is the telling part of the interview. You have made the point that its not the right time, that the people don't want to hear.

But even without detail, surely any reasonable journalist should be aghast at a government actively preparing for riots on the streets. But he isn't. He simply laughs it off.

So when do you think people should be informed? During the campaign maybe? During the negotiations? Maybe with less than 2 months to go?

Or do you feel that talking about what the government is planning is not required to be explained to the public?

No, you complained that that particular part of the interview wasn't expanded upon enough for you. Automatically you decided this was the presenter being dismissive when, given the time sensitive nature of live broadcasting, there could be a thousand reasons why it wasn't expounded further.