Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Stop moaning ffs

Tangential but the times has a story on Russia targeting Northern Ireland with fake stories on fb. There are more than a few of these accounts doing the same visible all across Boards too.

https://twitter.com/moreganit/status/1143032006550441984?s=21

Tell me how

devnull wrote: »

Unfortunately you should know by now that British State TV has an agenda and cannot be trusted. There is inherient bias in State TV in Britain because of their relience on the state for funding therefore they will be doing the best that they can to appease their paymasters.

It's sad but true.

I'm not so sure about that viewpoint. Many right wing publications accuse them of being anti-government, others of them being pro-Tory. A Tory MP recently said that they would enact legislation to curb their bias so what does that tell you?
If both sides are complaining about you, you generally must not be too bad.

But this should have been covered and I do think some prejudice was involved in deciding not to do so, but I don't know was this prejudice because someone didn't want to show Boris in a bad light, they didn't want to show how an ultra-right wing Trump supporter and employee was guiding UK politicians on Brexit or they just didn't want to upset the government.

Stop moaning ffs

A much bigger deal should be made of Boris lying and demonstrably so about engaging Bannon.
It’s been lost under the nonsense about the domestic row.
Uk media really isn’t doing its job.

robinph

devnull wrote: »

Unfortunately you should know by now that British State TV has an agenda and cannot be trusted. There is inherient bias in State TV in Britain because of their relience on the state for funding therefore they will be doing the best that they can to appease their paymasters.

It's sad but true.

But the next bunch of people to control the purse strings are generally whoever is currently in opposition. They can't (and don't) operate in a way to always appease whoever is currently in power, because that never lasts and whoever they were going against last election cycle will be their bosses next time round.

That both sides think the BBC is biased basically means that they are not...although I think pretty much everyone thinks that Farage gets too much airtime.

Professor Moriarty

robinph wrote: »

But the next bunch of people to control the purse strings are generally whoever is currently in opposition. They can't (and don't) operate in a way to always appease whoever is currently in power, because that never lasts and whoever they were going against last election cycle will be their bosses next time round.

That both sides think the BBC is biased basically means that they are not...although I think pretty much everyone thinks that Farage gets too much airtime.

What is also being overlooked is that pro Brexit opinions are being given much more airtime than anti Brexit opinions. This is because of the inordinate focus on the Tory leadership contest which is being contested by Brexiteers.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is also being overlooked is that pro Brexit opinions are being given much more airtime than anti Brexit opinions. This is because of the inordinate focus on the Tory leadership contest which is being contested by Brexiteers.

Some argue weekly that the Question Time show is inherently anti-Brexit. More say every week that it is blindingly pro-Brexit.

I listen to the Brexitcast podcast and I find it very pro-UK, that's not to say it is pro-Brexit as such but the presenters all seem to be very confident in the UK's standing and capability (and relevance) in the world.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

Some argue weekly that the Question Time show is inherently anti-Brexit. More say every week that it is blindingly pro-Brexit.

I listen to the Brexitcast podcast and I find it very pro-UK, that's not to say it is pro-Brexit as such but the presenters all seem to be very confident in the UK's standing and capability (and relevance) in the world.

I tend to watch the BBC and Sky only. I never see Question Time but will often see Newsnight and The Marr Show. TBF, both Maitlis and Marr are very quick to shoot holes in Brexiteer arguments. If anything, Sky would be lean towards anti Brexit rather than pro. Of course you then have The Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun etcetra, but life's too short to be reading that rubbish.

Leroy42

I listen to BRexitcast as well and I agree that it is very Pro-UK. Katya seems to be the only one even trying to get across the issues, but even she won't go the full hog on it and keeps throwing in the "there is always a change" line. Which of course is true, but she needs to clarify the likelyness of it and it wouldn't do her any harm to try to explain the issues facing the EU from BRexit in terms of the politicians.

It is all discussed through the prism of UK politics as if Leo, Macron etc have no electorate or issues themselves.

I certainly feel they have lost their way a bit recently, letting the success and nice feedback go to their heads. Now a portion of every podcast is giving over to just how great they each are, how much the politicians and others love them and just how zany they all are.

I get it that it is supposed to be somewhat lighthearted as well, but there is a balance and IMO they are getting it very very wrong. For example, wil they take down Johnson over his insistence on "Art 24, or whatever" or will they simply laugh it off? Based on all prior Laura will simply gasp at how incredible it all is and that she received a text message from a Tory MP. She seems to what people be to amazed that she knows the MP's, when that is actually simply her job!

They also fail to deal with the wider world or what is coming next. What happens, in either deal or No deal, after?

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

I listen to BRexitcast as well and I agree that it is very Pro-UK. Katya seems to be the only one even trying to get across the issues, but even she won't go the full hog on it and keeps throwing in the "there is always a change" line. Which of course is true, but she needs to clarify the likelyness of it and it wouldn't do her any harm to try to explain the issues facing the EU from BRexit in terms of the politicians.

It is all discussed through the prism of UK politics as if Leo, Macron etc have no electorate or issues themselves.

I certainly feel they have lost their way a bit recently, letting the success and nice feedback go to their heads. Now a portion of every podcast is giving over to just how great they each are, how much the politicians and others love them and just how zany they all are.

I get it that it is supposed to be somewhat lighthearted as well, but there is a balance and IMO they are getting it very very wrong. For example, wil they take down Johnson over his insistence on "Art 24, or whatever" or will they simply laugh it off? Based on all prior Laura will simply gasp at how incredible it all is and that she received a text message from a Tory MP. She seems to what people be to amazed that she knows the MP's, when that is actually simply her job!

They also fail to deal with the wider world or what is coming next. What happens, in either deal or No deal, after?

Black Bold part - Most definitely. On the latest edition, the EU summit was going on and Katya said that even though other EU ministers were involved in summit discussions, she wondered were they actually talking about who would be the next Tory leader.

Blue bold part - Yeah. The love to clap themselves on the back. When tony Connelly was on it, he seemed to find it awkward that he wanted to focus on the serious discussions where they wanted to talk about how good they all were to have their own podcasts.

Red bold part - Agree. Most serious discussion on the last episode was when John Barnes (who had been on QT) joined them.

Stop moaning ffs

Leroy42 wrote: »

I listen to BRexitcast as well and I agree that it is very Pro-UK. Katya seems to be the only one even trying to get across the issues, but even she won't go the full hog on it and keeps throwing in the "there is always a change" line. Which of course is true, but she needs to clarify the likelyness of it and it wouldn't do her any harm to try to explain the issues facing the EU from BRexit in terms of the politicians.

It is all discussed through the prism of UK politics as if Leo, Macron etc have no electorate or issues themselves.

I certainly feel they have lost their way a bit recently, letting the success and nice feedback go to their heads. Now a portion of every podcast is giving over to just how great they each are, how much the politicians and others love them and just how zany they all are.

I get it that it is supposed to be somewhat lighthearted as well, but there is a balance and IMO they are getting it very very wrong. For example, wil they take down Johnson over his insistence on "Art 24, or whatever" or will they simply laugh it off? Based on all prior Laura will simply gasp at how incredible it all is and that she received a text message from a Tory MP. She seems to what people be to amazed that she knows the MP's, when that is actually simply her job!

They also fail to deal with the wider world or what is coming next. What happens, in either deal or No deal, after?

Everything out of her mouth is a source she can’t name but a high up Tory and rumours she’s been told. And she reports these as facts. ‘The Eu will blink first and back down ‘ etc
Her job is to question and challenge those she claims to have all these quotes and info from. She doesn’t. She repeats it as news.
That’s either low key propaganda or she just isn’t very good at being a journalist.
Yet in this debacle she’s a perfect representation of everything that’s wrong with the whole brexit disaster. Journalists and outlets acting as mouthpieces with agendas rather than questioning and challenging the factions involved.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I listen to BRexitcast as well and I agree that it is very Pro-UK. Katya seems to be the only one even trying to get across the issues, but even she won't go the full hog on it and keeps throwing in the "there is always a change" line. Which of course is true, but she needs to clarify the likelyness of it and it wouldn't do her any harm to try to explain the issues facing the EU from BRexit in terms of the politicians.

It is all discussed through the prism of UK politics as if Leo, Macron etc have no electorate or issues themselves.

I certainly feel they have lost their way a bit recently, letting the success and nice feedback go to their heads. Now a portion of every podcast is giving over to just how great they each are, how much the politicians and others love them and just how zany they all are.

I get it that it is supposed to be somewhat lighthearted as well, but there is a balance and IMO they are getting it very very wrong. For example, wil they take down Johnson over his insistence on "Art 24, or whatever" or will they simply laugh it off? Based on all prior Laura will simply gasp at how incredible it all is and that she received a text message from a Tory MP. She seems to what people be to amazed that she knows the MP's, when that is actually simply her job!

They also fail to deal with the wider world or what is coming next. What happens, in either deal or No deal, after?

It was interesting to hear arch Brexiteer Fox forensically dismiss Johnson's belief that GATT 24 (interesting summation here would mitigate the impact of No Deal. In fact, much of what Fox said throughout the interview was mood music for a May type premiership.

PeadarCo

Tell me how wrote:

I listen to the Brexitcast podcast and I find it very pro-UK, that's not to say it is pro-Brexit as such but the presenters all seem to be very confident in the UK's standing and capability (and relevance) in the world.

Is this not a big part of the problem. The UK is no longer a super power and it is negotiating with a economic superpower in the EU. Brexiters completely over estimate the UKs bargaining power, even after 2 years of negotiation.

Charles Babbage

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Brexit: alternative to Irish backstop 'feasible in three years'

So I haven't read the report itself, but the article seems to suggest that they think the solution would be for the EU to allow Ireland deviate from EU standards and have special rules for Ireland and Britain? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems to be a more convoluted and difficult to implement version of Northern Ireland staying part of the EU customs area, and instead creating some weird hybrid Northern Ireland economic zones and an Irish and UK rulebook that diverges from the EU?

To be honest as a concept it would be a good starting point for discussion...three years ago, but three months (supposedly) before leaving it seems like a waste of time and paper.

Freight NI are always a clear source of analysis on this osrt of waffle.

https://twitter.com/freight_NI

VinLieger

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Uk media really isn’t doing its job.

Whats new? They haven't been doing their job for at least the last 7-8 years

Itssoeasy

Emma Barnett does do a good job of holding the brexiteer lot to account and she does it very simply, and it's by not taking all they are saying as gospel. She challenges them and most of them don't do well when challenged.

MrMusician18

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain

Max Hastings pens a withering assessment of Johnson's character.

Among a very quotable article, this stands out for me:
"Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade. "

CelticRambler

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Brexit: alternative to Irish backstop 'feasible in three years'

So I haven't read the report itself, but the article seems to suggest that they think the solution would be for the EU to allow Ireland deviate from EU standards and have special rules for Ireland and Britain? ...

That was my initial impression, from speed-reading the executive summary.

It also seems to take (yet again) the supposed frictionless and infrastructure-free Swiss border as a model for this new Irish border. I know Brexiteers have a tendency to not see things that are really there, but FFS how can you not see all the signs, infrastructure and customs agents on the Swiss borders? I've been working this month in the France-Germany-Switzerland frontier zone, and there is nothing "frictionless" about it ... and I've only be crossing it as an ordinary traveller.

20silkcut

CelticRambler wrote: »

That was my initial impression, from speed-reading the executive summary.

It also seems to take (yet again) the supposed frictionless and infrastructure-free Swiss border as a model for this new Irish border. I know Brexiteers have a tendency to not see things that are really there, but FFS how can you not see all the signs, infrastructure and customs agents on the Swiss borders? I've been working this month in the France-Germany-Switzerland frontier zone, and there is nothing "frictionless" about it ... and I've only be crossing it as an ordinary traveller.

And they want a relationship with the EU that’s more distant than Switzerland.

Nody

20silkcut wrote: »

And they want a relationship with the EU that’s more distant than Switzerland.

No; they want a closer relationship but for some reason thinks that means they can still be as free as Botswana in terms of making up their own rules at the same time. It's the inherent paradox of all Brexit arguments; they think they can have only the benefits and skip out on the obligations that comes with it (i.e. full single market access without having to be compliant with the single market rules etc.) and that EU should destroy itself to give it to them if they simply twist things enough / channel the WW2 winning spirit.

Sam Russell

20silkcut wrote: »

And they want a relationship with the EU that’s more distant than Switzerland.

I thought they wanted a very close relationship with the EU - FTA, Single Market Access, full passporting for financials, no free movement, no ECJ, plus access to most EU progammes and Agencies, and no budgetry contribution.

What is the name for a horse with a horn? A unicorn.

20silkcut

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought they wanted a very close relationship with the EU - FTA, Single Market Access, full passporting for financials, no free movement, no ECJ, plus access to most EU progammes and Agencies, and no budgetry contribution.

What is the name for a horse with a horn? A unicorn.

Over 40% of the population of the UK and the loudest of their politicians want no deal with the EU. Effectively they want a trade war economic sanctions and the destruction of the EU. To me that puts them further outside the tent than the Swiss.

trellheim

The Brexit Party Objectives ( FOI ) https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/255134/FOI-015-19.pdf

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It was interesting to hear arch Brexiteer Fox forensically dismiss Johnson's belief that GATT 24 (interesting summation here would mitigate the impact of No Deal. In fact, much of what Fox said throughout the interview was mood music for a May type premiership.

Was watching Adam Boulton this morning and Johnson supporter Kwasi Kwateng basically called Fox (and Mark Carney by implication) a liar when Fox's interview on Marr was brought up. Such was the level of waffle emanating from Kwateng's mouth that the normally implacable Boulton was very close to losing his rag. "Specious nonsense," was how he described the stuff coming from the Johnson camp on the GATT24 issue. Sophie Ridge also gave another Johnson supporter a torrid time on her show yesterday morning. Seems to me the questioning of Johnson's Brexit stance is really beginning to get some incisive scrutiny. Not sure how much difference it will make with tory membership, though, and Hunt too deserves the same level of scrutiny.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought they wanted a very close relationship with the EU - FTA, Single Market Access, full passporting for financials, no free movement, no ECJ, plus access to most EU progammes and Agencies, and no budgetry contribution.

What is the name for a horse with a horn? A unicorn.

Well they do already have a unicorn on the front of their passports so they obviously believe in them!

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

The Brexit Party Objectives ( FOI ) https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/255134/FOI-015-19.pdf

Interesting that the party was called the "British Union and Sovereignty Party" as recently as February.

CelticRambler

eire4 wrote: »

Well they do already have a unicorn on the front of their passports so they obviously believe in them!

That belongs to Scotland, doesn't it? Maybe if they gave the Scots their independence, everything else would suddenly make sense ... ?


... or maybe not. :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Brexit: alternative to Irish backstop 'feasible in three years'

Three years ? They can dream on.

The age verification system for porn sites was promised in 2015 and dure to roll out last April, instead it will be delayed for another 6 months because,
and this is pure Brexit, the government failed to inform the EU of its proposals,

Beechwoodspark

Panorama currently looking at Johnson and hunt. Both are very underwhelming with plenty of skeletons in closet.

An Ciarraioch

Behind paywall, but Peter Foster saying France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Poland and Denmark are asking Dublin to outline its border plans in the event of a no-deal Brexit:

http://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1143262368299986947

FrancieBrady

The British media with their loaded reportage, 'under pressure'? Maybe they have just been asked for their plans in the event of a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has known from the beginning that a border would be required, I sincerely hope we have detailed plans.