Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Tell me how

steddyeddy wrote: »

I look at the Question Time panel and audience and think they're getting away with falsehoods and lies week after week and it annoys me. These people have a completely wrong view of Britain's place on the world stage and they see this as another colonial venture. Annoying as it is there's some reassurance that they'll reap what they sow. It's not going to end well for them as a nation.

Farage treats QT like a prime time party political broadcast, there needs to be strategy in terms of what to say, what will get a good soundbite for twitter, what will the audience react to and how can he best communicate with the just right of centre people who he wants to talk to to get them to move further to the right. No doubt there will be an army of primed advocates on Twitter and FB suggesting he is talking sense.

He doesn't care about anyone on the left, whether or not he 'loses' an argument or looks like a bad guy.

You'd like to meet his equal on the Remain side, Soubry has potential, but I think she might be more diplomatic because she knows that the general press is on Farage's side and they will come at her for ranting etc if she gets to vocal.

Would like to see Alistair Campbell on with him in that forum.

Irish Praetorian

I like to try to see the best in people when they make a political argument, even if its not one I particular agree with or if its one I think is an enormous con, but by god those Question Time audiences make it difficult. I can only console myself with the knowledge that as on Brexit as much as any other issue, audiences for QT are not necessarily representative of any part of the population apart from those who take sufficient interest on the issue to appear on TV.

Joe_ Public

Brexit Behind Closed Doors starting on BBC4 now. Looks well worth a watch.

Tell me how

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I like to try to see the best in people when they make a political argument, even if its not one I particular agree with or if its one I think is an enormous con, but by god those Question Time audiences make it difficult. I can only console myself with the knowledge that as on Brexit as much as any other issue, audiences for QT are not necessarily representative of any part of the population apart from those who take sufficient interest on the issue to appear on TV.

I'd like to see an Irish version. Vincent Browne did something similar before, I think before last GE maybe.
Maybe we would be able to manage one show a month maybe in different towns/cities around the country.

Headshot

Tell me how wrote: »

Anna Soubry is vehemently anti-Brexit and is member of Change party.

Yup, i've alot of time for her.

Im recording this right now, should be a cracker

Faugheen

steddyeddy wrote: »

The really get the pits of society in Question Time's audience. Leave means leave, I don't care about the Irish ect ect. Any sensible voice is quickly shut down.

And anytime Farage tries to dodge a question or shout someone down by interrupting them constantly and is called out on this, he accuses the BBC of being anti-Brexit and what have you.

Hurrache

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Brexit Behind Closed Doors starting on BBC4 now. Looks well worth a watch.

There's some mad stuff in this

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

Farage treats QT like a prime time party political broadcast, there needs to be strategy in terms of what to say, what will get a good soundbite for twitter, what will the audience react to and how can he best communicate with the just right of centre people who he wants to talk to to get them to move further to the right. No doubt there will be an army of primed advocates on Twitter and FB suggesting he is talking sense.

He doesn't care about anyone on the left, whether or not he 'loses' an argument or looks like a bad guy.

You'd like to meet his equal on the Remain side, Soubry has potential, but I think she might be more diplomatic because she knows that the general press is on Farage's side and they will come at her for ranting etc if she gets to vocal.

Would like to see Alistair Campbell on with him in that forum.

There is and won't be an equal for the simple reason that advocating a remain vote in 2016 and a People's Vote in 2019 means recognising that the status quo is imperfect and that staying in the EU will at least preserve it in the hope that it might improve and both British and European levels.

Farage on the other hand has several potent advantages. Firstly, he is elected simply by virtue of the idiosyncrasies of the d'Hondt system. He has failed to be elected to Westminster seven times now but has in Strasbourg found a political teat to suckle at. His concentrated base in Southeast England twinned with the barely proportional electoral system named after my least favourite Belgian mathematician and lawyer leave him in a fortified electoral position.

Secondly, he has simplicity. If a pragmatic liberal like myself is asked about say low wages, I would point to low British productivity, lack of meaningful investment, economic disparity, the demise of trade unions, etc... Each of these topics is worthy of several scholarly works in and of themselves. Farage needs merely one word. Immigration. Nothing else. Long NHS queues? Too many immigrants clogging up Her Majesty's wonderful public health system. Can't get a school place for your child? Same. Too much traffic in London? Yep. Foreigners again. That list goes on. Should the interest take you, here are some more of my ramblings on immigration.

Finally, there are geopolitical forces at play outside both the UK and the EU. Farage's proximity to Donald Trump adds to his soft power amongst less politically engaged voters in my opinion. The current liberal order is being undermined in various ways and the consensus of support which exists for it is showing cracks. It needs shoring up less populists and demagogues of both left and right continue to undermine it. Perhaps fatally so.

Farage's position as I describe above means all he has to do is to communicate using clear, simple, unequivocal language. He doesn't wield electoral power in the UK and is thus freed by any constraints it would impose. In this regard he can do as he pleases. He is also free (though not in the sense of EU taxpayers' spending) to travel around the UK meeting people with his pint and cigarette drumming up grassroots support for Brexit. These are people the Nick Cleggs, Tony Blairs and David Camerons might visit just before an election with PR and security teams. Farage stands in a pub, poses for selfies and talks simply and transparently about his cause. This is what makes him so effective. Until liberals, the left and the centre learn from him and find ways to engage him away from his home ground, and soon at that it may be too late.

Joe_ Public

Hurrache wrote: »

There's some mad stuff in this

I think it really paints the overriding picture of EU unity against British disharmony. Comes across a bit pro-Verhofstadt in parts, but definitely seems a very likeable and impressive man and politician.

ath262

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Brexit Behind Closed Doors starting on BBC4 now. Looks well worth a watch.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think it really paints the overriding picture of EU unity against British disharmony. Comes across a bit pro-Verhofstadt in parts, but definitely seems a very likeable and impressive man and politician.

part 2 of this tomorrow - same time

Tikki Wang Wang

Hurrache wrote: »

There's some mad stuff in this

That Irish wan was a disgrace effing and blinding like an out of control drunk sailor.

Burty330

So our rights to work and live in the UK will remain the same with the deal thats about to be signed by Simon Coveney in London next week.. Can anybody confirm?

S.M.B.

Burty330 wrote: »

So our rights to work and live in the UK will remain the same with the deal thats about to be signed by Simon Coveney in London next week.. Can anybody confirm?

Sounds like it. As an irish citizen living in London is glad to hear its been set in stone. I did hear more work needs to be done when it comes to medical care, pensions and something else I can't remember. Not sure exactly what this entails but if be keen to find out more.

ath262

Burty330 wrote: »

So our rights to work and live in the UK will remain the same with the deal thats about to be signed by Simon Coveney in London next week.. Can anybody confirm?

it's a Memorandum of Understanding signed today basically formalising the details of the CTA - to be backed up by legislation if required.

ILoveYourVibes

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The fact that nothing has seemingly happened at all on the UKs side in the past month is not a great sign. The media is complicit in this, as they have completely ignored Brexit since the can was kicked to October.

They will be in EXACTLY the same position in OCT. Remember they break for the summer.

May will resign.

ThePanjandrum

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Will it be balanced with people from the remain camp or will it just be more un-contested anti-EU lies and Brexit PR?

Since the Referendum there has only been one occasion when there have been more Leavers than Remainers on the panel and that was three Leavers to two Remainers.


Otherwise there have been either three Remainers to two Leavers or four Remainers to one Leaver. The BBC claims the balance is different because it counts all Labour or Tory politicians as Leavers, even though it has a marked tendency to choose the more rabid Remainers from these parties.


Tomorrow Farage will be more measured than Soubry who is certifiable but who was protected from her constituency by the Tory Establishment. Farage's Brexit Party has candidates from both left and right but all of them say that they write theirown speeches and express their own opinions. If I'm not mistaken the lead candidate in Scotland is a gay black man.


BTW, a Jewish Brexit Party candidate from London has had large swastikas painted on the walls of his business. So much for the tolerance of his opponents outside the party, The Brexit Party has been recruiting for less than a month now and has 90,000 supporters paying a £25.00 fee. That makes it the fifth largest Party in the UK by supporters and it will soon move above the Lib Dems. It has a rolling programme of large sold out rallies, unlike its opponents.


Oh, tomorrow night looks like two Leavers, three Remainers.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Since the Referendum there has only been one occasion when there have been more Leavers than Remainers on the panel and that was three Leavers to two Remainers.


Otherwise there have been either three Remainers to two Leavers or four Remainers to one Leaver. The BBC claims the balance is different because it counts all Labour or Tory politicians as Leavers, even though it has a marked tendency to choose the more rabid Remainers from these parties.


Tomorrow Farage will be more measured than Soubry who is certifiable but who was protected from her constituency by the Tory Establishment. Farage's Brexit Party has candidates from both left and right but all of them say that they write theirown speeches and express their own opinions. If I'm not mistaken the lead candidate in Scotland is a gay black man.


BTW, a Jewish Brexit Party candidate from London has had large swastikas painted on the walls of his business. So much for the tolerance of his opponents outside the party, The Brexit Party has been recruiting for less than a month now and has 90,000 supporters paying a £25.00 fee. That makes it the fifth largest Party in the UK by supporters and it will soon move above the Lib Dems. It has a rolling programme of large sold out rallies, unlike its opponents.


Oh, tomorrow night looks like two Leavers, three Remainers.

I don't know if people comment on the make-up of the panel so much as the audience that go to these recordings. It is strange that UKIP candidates get invited to many recordings and that they also get time to make a statement and get airtime. Either that is a big coincidence or there is something to it.

BBC Question Time slammed after former UKIP candidate makes audience appearance for third time

BBC's Question Time has come under criticism after a man appeared on the show for a THIRD time, despite supposedly stringent rules around applications.

Billy Mitchell appeared on the popular politics show on Thursday night when it aired from Motherwell, North Lanarkshire, wearing a distinctive orange jacket.

The former UKIP candidate had previously featured on the show in Kilmarnock and Stirling.

Then you have to question their invitations to UKIP politicians on the panel, yet the MEPs from other parties, unless they are Leave supporters like Daniel Hannan hardly get a look in to appear. Now the counter argument would be that they cannot have two Labour politicians on at the same time, one MP and one MEP, but this arguably contributed to the misinformation of voters in the UK of the EU as they never really had a voice on the good of the EU of MEPs that is working there and is not anti-EU.

Ukip Appeared On A Quarter Of All Question Time Shows Since May 2010, Huff Post UK Reveals

You could argue that the reason for this is the representation of UKIP to the EU parliament, but it doesn't explain how from 2010 they have been on the show almost a quarter of the time with hardly any MPs and with only 16% of the vote in the 2009 EU elections. The Greens had half their votes in 2009 but didn't appear in as many episodes.

Or how Isabel Oakeshott is allowed to still appear even after it was revealed she knew of emails linking Arron Banks to Russia and sat on it until The Observer was doing a story on those links. She then gave the story to the Sunday Times for them to scoop it and reveal the emails and the links.

Profile: Isabel Oakeshott and The Bad Boys of Brexit

At the time Oakeshott described how Banks and his right-hand-man, Andy Wigmore, had given her “access to their entire delicious email database, as well as all their text message records” to help her write the book.

Over the weekend, according to Oakeshott, some of the files were provided digitally, while others came in paper format. The journalist claims that at the time she was not looking for Russian material and the emails were left to gather “dust in my attic”, only appreciating their significance when she revisited the material at the end of 2017 for a book she is co-writing with Ashcroft on defence funding.

This changed last week when she called Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr, who in conjunction with the freelance reporter Peter Jukes, had obtained some of the material and intended to publish it. At one point Oakeshott appeared willing to cooperate with the Observer but by Saturday evening it was clear that the material had been counter-briefed to the Sunday Times, which splashed on the story accompanied by a piece from the pro-Brexit journalist.

So questions should be raised on how the panel members are chosen and why certain audience members always get into shows and even get time to make statements. Does it not feel strange that in Scotland that is overwhelmingly for Remain the audience seem quite up for Brexit?

In any case, when looking at potential candidates for Tory leader when May decides to leave, it seems clear which way the party itself is trending.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1126245271313244165

That would explain why you see their MPs who wants to become leader becoming more resolute for a hard Brexit or even no-deal. This is dangerous for the country if they nail their colours to the mast on a harder Brexit than even May's.

Silent Running

I think that it's important to make the distinction between a "crash out" Brexit and a "no deal" Brexit.

A no deal Brexit is where a decision is made to leave without a deal and take their chances in the WTO world. This has been voted down by the HoC and, in theory, can't now happen.

A crash out Brexit is where they want to make a deal, but are unable to get it together enough to agree one. This is the default position and no votes in the HoC will change that.

The result will, of course, be the same, but I think that if the term "no deal Brexit " was dropped and "crash out Brexit" was used instead, the message might get through to the masses that this isn't a good thing. People still seem to think that plucky Britain can choose to go it alone and make a go of it. The reality is that they will be forced to make the best of a bad situation following a crash out.

Zubeneschamali

Silent Running wrote: »

A crash out Brexit is where they want to make a deal, but are unable to get it together enough to agree one. This is the default position and no votes in the HoC will change that.

This is not true.

It is perfectly possible for a vote to pass a law saying that if no deal is agreed on date X, the government shall revoke A50. That would change the default.

Or they could just keep doing what they did the last two times - as the default looms near, vote for an extension.

Silent Running

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is not true.


It is perfectly possible for a vote to pass a law saying that if no deal is agreed on date X, the government shall revoke A50. That would change the default.


Or they could just keep doing what they did the last two times - as the default looms near, vote for an extension.

Yep,OK point taken. Revocation is a real possibility. But it's going to take action in the HoC to make this happen. The EU would be happy if this were to happen.

However paralysis in the HoC is the current position and that would have to be broken. They can't rely on extension after extension. Patience in the EU is wearing thin. They could be forced to crash out if they push this strategy too far.

Leroy42

It is quite something that TM, whom we are constantly told is Tory to the core and puts party above everything even her country, is now fighting her own party for her own selfish reasons (legacy).

The country rejected her call for a leadership mandate back in 2017, the Tories were very poor in the recent locals, appear to be on course for a hiding in the EU elections, and most of her party is so keen to get rid of her they are prepared to change their own rules.

Yet still she clings on. But not on any idea that she is doing something good, but rather seemingly that she wants to be seen as having achieved anything at all. Her government has been a disaster, she has achieved nothing in terms of domestics having been totally consumed with Brexit. Her comment during PMQT, that the problem lay with the MP's rather than her (in terms of getting Brexit) yet again shows that she is at war with not only her own party but the house in general.

At least Cameron, for all his multiple faults, understood when he had to go.

That she is PM now in open defiance of her own party is quite staggering.

lawred2

Silent Running wrote: »

I think that it's important to make the distinction between a "crash out" Brexit and a "no deal" Brexit.

A no deal Brexit is where a decision is made to leave without a deal and take their chances in the WTO world. This has been voted down by the HoC and, in theory, can't now happen.

A crash out Brexit is where they want to make a deal, but are unable to get it together enough to agree one. This is the default position and no votes in the HoC will change that.

The result will, of course, be the same, but I think that if the term "no deal Brexit " was dropped and "crash out Brexit" was used instead, the message might get through to the masses that this isn't a good thing. People still seem to think that plucky Britain can choose to go it alone and make a go of it. The reality is that they will be forced to make the best of a bad situation following a crash out.

there is no effectual difference between a "crash out" Brexit and a "no deal" Brexit..

who the fug

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness Sam did say it's the default. A lot of Brexiters fail to understand this. Voting for a crash out not to happen doesn't prevent a crash out.

No a lot of MPs have been under an illusion for a long time , that if they ban something it won't happen, nothing to do with Brexit just a symptom of how bad our politicians are.

First Up

Tikki Wang Wang wrote:

That Irish wan was a disgrace effing and blinding like an out of control drunk sailor.

Edel Crosse - a fiesty lady. The programme did a good job reflecting the boisterous atmosphere and straight talking culture in Verhofstad's office. He doesn't mess about and neither do those in his team. (He's talking in Dublin tomorrow week so we can look forward to some lively utterances.)

The populist UK media is fuming over the programme. The Express and Sun in particular are spluttering in indignation. Hilarious.

Silent Running

lawred2 wrote: »

there is no effectual difference between a "crash out" Brexit and a "no deal" Brexit..

The difference is in the language. Crash out makes it seem more like a calamity. I clearly didn't make that point well. Though I did say in my post that the result is the same.

FreudianSlippers

Silent Running wrote: »

I think that it's important to make the distinction between a "crash out" Brexit and a "no deal" Brexit.

A no deal Brexit is where a decision is made to leave without a deal and take their chances in the WTO world. This has been voted down by the HoC and, in theory, can't now happen.

A crash out Brexit is where they want to make a deal, but are unable to get it together enough to agree one. This is the default position and no votes in the HoC will change that.

The result will, of course, be the same, but I think that if the term "no deal Brexit " was dropped and "crash out Brexit" was used instead, the message might get through to the masses that this isn't a good thing. People still seem to think that plucky Britain can choose to go it alone and make a go of it. The reality is that they will be forced to make the best of a bad situation following a crash out.

I disagree slightly:

A "no deal" Brexit is one where the EU and UK form no consensus for ground-rules on their future trade negotiations post-Brexit. However, if the UK want to trade on day-1 on WTO terms, there will have to be some deal consensus with the EU in order to do so.

Crashing out isn't the same, as it would not allow the UK to trade on WTO rules right away - there's simply no way the UK can untangle itself from the EU in such a manner as to trade in accordance with WTO rules on day-1.

Leroy42

Aren't WTO the lowest level, the default should nothing else exist? If so, then a crash out would necessitate WTO rules. Neither the UK or EU could avoid it, apart from making a deal?

CelticRambler

Silent Running wrote: »

I think that it's important to make the distinction between a "crash out" Brexit and a "no deal" Brexit.

This point has been made before, but repeatedly gets buried in other Brexit-related nonsense. Contrary to what some have stated above, the default is a crash out Brexit. There is no such thing, and never will be, as a "no deal" Brexit. Even the hardest Brexiteers acknowledge that a crash-out Brexit will have to be followed immediately by a raft of mini-deals cobbled together in a hurry. But a deal - no matter how "mini" - is still a deal, and there is absolutely no way the UK can have any kind of functional relationship with the EU without some kind of deal. Those who have ears to hear know that the EU has already decided what those deals will be, set out the terms and conditions and effectively told the UK exactly what their place will be in the Big Wide World post Brexit; but like my mother, there are an awful lot of Brexiteers who refuse to accept that they need a hearing aid.

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

Aren't WTO the lowest level, the default should nothing else exist? If so, then a crash out would necessitate WTO rules. Neither the UK or EU could avoid it, apart from making a deal?

The UK would find it impossible to trade on WTO rules without cooperation from the EU. WTO being the lowest required standard does not necessitate that individual countries can/do comply with those standards.

Nobody would seriously suggest that even trade on this island could be in compliance with WTO rules without some regulatory framework in place between the UK and EU?

Flex

First Up wrote: »

Edel Crosse - a fiesty lady. The programme did a good job reflecting the boisterous atmosphere and straight talking culture in Verhofstad's office. He doesn't mess about and neither do those in his team. (He's talking in Dublin tomorrow week so we can look forward to some lively utterances.)

The populist UK media is fuming over the programme. The Express and Sun in particular are spluttering in indignation. Hilarious.

Theyre also still pushing the line that

• the UK wont put up a border
• Ireland and the EU claim they dont want a border,
• so therefore theres no need for the backstop...
• then blaming the EU

The dishonesty is disgusting and its incredible that thats still an opinion held in the UK. Charles Moore received a round of applause parroting that nonsense of 'you wont put up a border and we wont, so who will?' on QT last month