Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Shelga

Ugh, listened to five minutes of Kuenssberg and her cronies on Brexitcast, something I hardly ever do as I find it boring and biased.

Sure enough, listened just long enough to hear them sneeringly say “then the EU reopened the withdrawal agreement, something they said they would NEVER do... the EU will make rules that are easily broken.” I can’t stand any of them on that podcast. Although I’ve heard the guy from it present Any Questions, and I think he’s better on that.

The EU reopened the withdrawal agreement because Boris agreed to throw NI under the bus, something that “no British Prime Minister could ever agree to”. Why don’t these rubbish so-called journalists ever mention that?

reslfj

Shelga wrote: »

Ugh, listened to five minutes of Kuenssberg and her cronies ....
....
The EU reopened the withdrawal agreement because Boris agreed to throw NI under the bus, something that “no British Prime Minister could ever agree to”. Why don’t these rubbish so-called journalists ever mention that?

I may have written this here a while back. But

• The EU got rid of the UK-wide CU - a very major EU27 concession - and got their original proposal of an Irish Sea border back.
• The backstop (an option, if all else failed) was replaced by a permanent front-stop.

This is better for Ireland and the EU27 and much worse for the UK.

Much of what would come for free to the UK economy with the CU will now have to be renegotiated with the EU27 and be paid for by the UK - and likely paid dearly.

The small risk of Stormont in 5-6 years time or ever will get a majority for overturning the front-stop seems very close to zero - given the demographic future of NI.

The EU27's and Ireland's job will of course be to ensure NI also in practical, economical terms and in the minds of people will be seen to move forward. There is a long an difficult road ahead, but it's the only one that makes any sense - I guess.

Lars

A Dub in Glasgo

Eastwood talking a lot of sense in the HoC the other day

https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1208002519852605440

The article in the Portugal News gets it with regard to how the UK is constructed which has been shown with absolute clarity over Brexit

https://twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1208358869656915968

Strazdas

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Eastwood talking a lot of sense in the HoC the other day

https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1208002519852605440

Claire Hanna's maiden speech was superb too. You can watch the full video here :

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/sdlp-mp-claire-hanna-makes-maiden-speech-in-the-house-of-commons-38803124.html

Capt'n Midnight

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The article in the Portugal News gets it with regard to how the UK is constructed which has been shown with absolute clarity over Brexit

twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1208358869656915968
Only 20 of the 364 seats won by the Conservative Party were in the other three ‘nations’ of the United Kingdom

Of those 20 , 6 were won in North Wales because of reduced Labour vote, nt from an increased conservative one.

And it's not that long ago that there was just ONE Tory MP in Scotland, which is still more than in NI.

They are 6 Tory seats in Scotland. Fishing was a big reason.
The EU and Norway have cut quotas.
The UK will be at the back of the queue when it comes to access because bth Norway and the EU will be protecting their fishermen for political reasons.

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They are 6 Tory seats in Scotland. Fishing was a big reason.

The EU and Norway have cut quotas.

The UK will be at the back of the queue when it comes to access because bth Norway and the EU will be protecting their fishermen for political reasons.

The total catch in each area is covered by the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" and not by individual nations.

The EU only divide the total allowed catch into quotas for each bordering nation.

This involves negotiations with the EU council (i.e. EU ministers for fishing) and for waters around the UK with countries like Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Quotas are set according to traditional catch level for each stock and country.

The EU, Norway and Iceland will protect their fishing rights not just for political reasons. But the CFP will much more be a deep red line, because the problems with the CFP has not much to do with small or unfair quotas. It's more about few fish and some dubious fishing procedures - discarding fish, destroying the seabed .... -

Note: Michel Barnier specifically mentioned fishing after the Boris WA was agreed and e.g. my PM - Mette Frederiksen - did the same before the latest EU Council meeting.

Fishing is the one point where the UK can't win anything but a new name for the CFP.

Lars

https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm

WomanSkirtFan8

J Mysterio wrote: »

RE Kuennsburg

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1208644882342043649

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1208649020798914562

Oh dear. Well all I will say is this history will not judge those who voted for brexit in any kind of favourable light once the full effects of the brexit disaster become apparent.

10000maniacs

J Mysterio wrote: »

RE Kuennsburg

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1208644882342043649

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1208649020798914562

It was always obvious that both Laura Kuenssberg and Andrew Neil were strident Brexiters.
She used to giggle like a little girl with her Tory guests and do a job on any Labour person she interviewed. Same with Neil.
Corbyn was an idiot to favour Palestine over Israel politically but that in itself is not being anti Jewish. Its just being anti Zionist. The BBC/Kuenssberg/Neil never made that distinction when grilling Labour people. Nor did the gutter UK press.

hotmail.com

I don't understand any controversy in what Laura K said about Remainers trying to undo Brexit.

It's a valid point that some remainers haven't got in their thick heads yet.

ancapailldorcha

hotmail.com wrote: »

I don't understand any controversy in what Laura K said about Remainers trying to undo Brexit.

It's a valid point that some remainers haven't got in their thick heads yet.

She's not supposed to take sides like this. It's obviously partisan and biased of her to come out like this in favour of the government. The BBC is supposed to be fair and impartial and their head of Politics coming out like this undermines this standard. Her point being valid or not valid is irrelevant. If she'd come out in favour of a second referendum, you can be damn sure the newspapers owned by a few men would have been frothing at the bit about it.

Spanish Eyes

Any issues with Gibraltar does anyone know?

Enzokk

hotmail.com wrote: »

I don't understand any controversy in what Laura K said about Remainers trying to undo Brexit.

It's a valid point that some remainers haven't got in their thick heads yet.

Did you read the BBC charter? Do you think she kept close to it?

"reporters... are the public... voice of the BBC.... audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal opinions of our journalists... in matters of... political... controversy... including in social media."

She said this,

"But, covering it as a story, to me it just seemed like, people voted for that.

"It’s not your job to undo it!"

It's her job to report, not to have a personal opinion on it that could then possibly influence her reporting on it. Seeing as she used her personal twitter account to spread false news and promote the blog of Dominic Cummings, the sooner she is gone from the BBC the better.

MrMusician18

hotmail.com wrote: »

I don't understand any controversy in what Laura K said about Remainers trying to undo Brexit.

It's a valid point that some remainers haven't got in their thick heads yet.

She said that history will question those that tried to overturn the referendum.

As a political correspondent she above all should know that a political decision is not eternal and politics is ultimately the art of persuasion. The remainers truly believed in their position and it was their right to try have it overturned.

As to what way history will judge the remainers, that ultimately remains to be seen - and will only be seen in the context of the UKs prosperity and relevance in the following 25 years. Given that the smart money says that Brexit will be harmful to the UKs economy, clout on the world stage and it's very own union, I suspect that history will not judge them harshly for their aims and beliefs but their ineffectiveness in their attempt to get a second vote and ultimately halt the project.

Laura K is far to close to Johnson to be an effective political reporter. She has almost single handedly ruined what remained of BBC news reputation for being impartial and accurate.

Bit cynical

I think Kuennsburg is right about history judging the remainers but I agree with MrMusician18 and ancapailldorcha that she should have kept those views to herself at the current time.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think Kuennsburg is right about history judging the remainers but I agree with MrMusician18 and ancapailldorcha that she should have kept those views to herself at the current time.

What do you history judging them?

Is your position that they willfully ignored the will of the people? Because that charge could very easily be laid at the feet of Johnson and ERG for voting against TMs deal?

Or is it that you believe that in a democracy questions are not allowed, that once a position has been agreed then any that disagree will be harshly judged? So for example all those opposed to the Poll tax are wrong?

The issue with LK is that very clearly she has a position, which although perfectly natural is not professional, and all her reporting must be seen in that context.

So in her eyes Johnson is right and Corbyn was working against the people. It would be very difficult of even the best of us to report in a balanced way on that given that she sees one side as right and the other wrong by.

But regardless of all of that, it shows a staggering lack of appreciation of her position that she would open herself up to such a charge. Are we supposed to believe that she has no understanding of the current questioning of the BBC, unlikely given she retweeted Huw Edwards statement on BBC neutrality.

The Brexiteers had her, Remainers had Bercow. Impartiality is a nice idea but it's pretty hard to actually achieve it.

She should have kept that opinion to herself, though. Surely she knows it flies against what she signed up for.

Rjd2

10000maniacs wrote: »

It was always obvious that both Laura Kuenssberg and Andrew Neil were strident Brexiters.
She used to giggle like a little girl with her Tory guests and do a job on any Labour person she interviewed. Same with Neil.
.

So you are suggesting that Neil never tears apart tories then?

Neil is a right winger and Jon Snow a leftie and they are both splendid and not afraid to go after people "on their side".

If you want an echo chamber their is always novara media and the telegraph.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

The Brexiteers had her, Remainers had Bercow. Impartiality is a nice idea but it's pretty hard to actually achieve it.

She should have kept that opinion to herself, though. Surely she knows it flies against what she signed up for.

Bercow wasn't a problem when he allowed questions from Leavers in the years before the referendum though, much like he favoured Remainers in the latter years.

Rjd2 wrote: »

So you are suggesting that Neil never tears apart tories then?

Neil is a right winger and Jon Snow a leftie and they are both splendid and not afraid to go after people "on their side".

If you want an echo chamber their is always novara media and the telegraph.

Andrew Neil is a great interviewer, but his social media activity and political views mean he shouldn't be employed by the BBC. But they allow him to get away with it so what chance do they have acting against their Political Editor?

Nothing will happen to her, but I think there is consensus she should face action, again. For someone earning more than £250K per year she should be able to keep it professional.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Brexiteers had her, Remainers had Bercow. Impartiality is a nice idea but it's pretty hard to actually achieve it.

She should have kept that opinion to herself, though. Surely she knows it flies against what she signed up for.

The bercow and Laura k comparison is ludicrous.


His job is to follow and enforce the rules of parliament to a tee. Not break them on a whim just because it suits your viewpoint. He did that very well. Just because the rules didn't suit the hardened brexiters is inconsequential.


Her job is to report and edit the news like a proper journalist for one of the world's oldest news organisations. She's a disgrace to all that went before her and frankly should be out of a job. She broke pretty much all of the rules of the organisation and has basically ruined it's reputation at home and abroad. No doubt losing viewers and trust.



How you compared them on anything other than basic but but buts is beyond me

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Brexiteers had her, Remainers had Bercow. Impartiality is a nice idea but it's pretty hard to actually achieve it.

She should have kept that opinion to herself, though. Surely she knows it flies against what she signed up for.

Bercow isn't and wasn't a journalist for the state funded BBC.

I'm not sure that your line of reasoning is remotely valid really.

lawred2

listermint wrote: »

The bercow and Laura k comparison is ludicrous.


His job is to follow and enforce the rules of parliament to a tee. Not break them on a whim just because it suits your viewpoint. He did that very well. Just because the rules didn't suit the hardened brexiters is inconsequential.


Her job is to report and edit the news like a proper journalist for one of the world's oldest news organisations. She's a disgrace to all that went before her and frankly should be out of a job. She broke pretty much all of the rules of the organisation and has basically ruined it's reputation at home and abroad. No doubt losing viewers and trust.



How you compared them on anything other than basic but but buts is beyond me

LK was likely bought and paid for a long time ago. I don't think she's an unwitting player in all this. She's singing someone else's tune.

She's trivialised political news coverage with her reductive tittle tattle type tweets and groupie style gossip girl podcasts that at this stage, the content of what she's saying and communicating is received as inconsequential trivia.

Reality is the opposite of course but that hardly matters.

She's a shrewd operator and has certainly earned her non BBC pay cheque.

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

LK was likely bought and paid for a long time ago. I don't think she's an unwitting player in all this. She's singing someone else's tune.

She's trivialised political news coverage with her reductive tittle tattle type tweets and groupie style gossip girl podcasts that at this stage, the content of what she's saying and communicating is received as inconsequential trivia.

Reality is the opposite of course but that hardly matters.

She's a shrewd operator and has certainly earned her non BBC pay cheque.

TBH to me she reeks of someone who just longs and craves to be on the inside and will do anything to stay there, i don't think she is as shrewd as you suggest, just she will just do anything and everything to keep the pipeline open that serves her stories and quotes to keep her name at the top of the byline.

hotmail.com

While I agree that the Laura K and the BBC has a pro establishment bias, on this occasion I feel it's just an observation that is highly valid.

The mere reaction from Remainers to this observation kind of speaks for itself. They refused to accept the result of the democratic vote 3 years ago and haven't shut up about it since.

hotmail.com

VinLieger wrote: »

TBH to me she reeks of someone who just longs and craves to be on the inside and will do anything to stay there, i don't think she is as shrewd as you suggest, just she will just do anything and everything to keep the pipeline open that serves her stories and quotes to keep her name at the top of the byline.

This is an issue generally with media personalities. They aim for big followers and lots of likes. It leads to mistakes and exposes their biases. They say that a retweet isn't an endorsement but they clearly found it interesting enough to retweet it.

The irony of course is that the majority don't use Twitter and the vast majority don't see the controversial tweets that people get so annoyed about. So twitter users probably need to calm down a bit.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do you history judging them?

Is your position that they willfully ignored the will of the people? Because that charge could very easily be laid at the feet of Johnson and ERG for voting against TMs deal?

Well it is true Johnson and the ERG voted against May's deal but so did the parliamentary Remainers.

However remainers voted against it in the hope that they could drive the UK to a position where the the only choice was revoke A50 or leave on no deal. The idea here was that no deal would be seen as sufficiently catastrophic that the UK government would choose to revoke A50. But revoking A50 would amount to not respecting the referendum result.

The ERG could argue that they voted against it because May's deal (particularly with the UK wide customs arrangement and regulatory alignment) was Brexit in name only and therefore contrary to the spirit of the referendum.

So history will certainly view Remainers as not respecting the outcome of the referendum.

I think it will go further than that though. I think it will view Remainers as not merely disrespecting a public vote but in addition, working against their own interests because they failed to grasp the reality of the situation. Had they understood what was happening they could have worked with it to bring about a more desirable (or from their point of view less undesirable) outcome.

listermint

hotmail.com wrote: »

While I agree that the Laura K and the BBC has a pro establishment bias, on this occasion I feel it's just an observation that is highly valid.

The mere reaction from Remainers to this observation kind of speaks for itself. They refused to accept the result of the democratic vote 3 years ago and haven't shut up about it since.

As is their democratic right.

I don't think you like democracy as much as you say you do

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it will view Remainers as not merely disrespecting a public vote but in addition, working against their own interests because they failed to grasp the reality of the situation.

:pac: :pac: :pac: Remainers have a poor grasp of reality?

Ask any Remainer what staying in the EU means for Britain and they can tell you, positives and negatives. Ask the Leavers what Brexit means and you'll be lucky to get two matching opinions in a group of three people. That's why May failed to get her WA through, and why Johnson is on track to fail in his stated objective too. Note my use of the word "stated" - because who knows what his real objective is ... of if he's even got so far as defining one. :rolleyes:

MrMusician18

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well it is true Johnson and the ERG voted against May's deal but so did the parliamentary Remainers.

However remainers voted against it in the hope that they could drive the UK to a position where the the only choice was revoke A50 or leave on no deal. The idea here was that no deal would be seen as sufficiently catastrophic that the UK government would choose to revoke A50. But revoking A50 would amount to not respecting the referendum result.

The ERG could argue that they voted against it because May's deal (particularly with the UK wide customs arrangement and regulatory alignment) was Brexit in name only and therefore contrary to the spirit of the referendum.

So history will certainly view Remainers as not respecting the outcome of the referendum.

I think it will go further than that though. I think it will view Remainers as not merely disrespecting a public vote but in addition, working against their own interests because they failed to grasp the reality of the situation. Had they understood what was happening they could have worked with it to bring about a more desirable (or from their point of view less undesirable) outcome.

I think it would have been a huge stretch to get remainers to accept that the decision of the referendum was final. We have a tendency to forget the details of how this process played out: Aside from rerunning the vote, there was a belief that the UK leadership would pivot to a very soft leave in order to end the divisions. What May did however was the opposite, she boxed herself into a corner with her own stupid red lines. There was zero attempt from the victors at a political reconciliation, even though leave was so ill defined there was huge scope for reimagining it.

As for Laura K, I couldn't say whether she was leave or remain. That's not the issue, it's the cheerleading of the Tories and in particular, Johnson that's her main problem.

Part of Johnson's new media strategy is to see the word "Brexit" fall out of use for describing the next phase of the negotiations. Will Laura K play along?

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

So history will certainly view Remainers as not respecting the outcome of the referendum.

If that ends up being the case then great. We'll all have our own unicorn and it will have it's own blue pet passport.

What is far more likely is that remainers will be seen as having been trying to avert the disaster that the country will soon find itself in. We are still waiting to see what this Brexit utopia will actually be and why it is going to be of benefit to anyone. But it's already clear how the country and population loses out in various things.

timetogo1

robinph wrote: »

If that ends up being the case then great. We'll all have our own unicorn and it will have it's own blue pet passport.

What is far more likely is that remainers will be seen as having been trying to avert the disaster that the country will soon find itself in. We are still waiting to see what this Brexit utopia will actually be and why it is going to be of benefit to anyone. But it's already clear how the country and population loses out in various things.

Id say in 10 years you won't be able to find anybody who admits they were a Brexiter.