Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

According to the Expres headline the EU have caved and agreed to re-open talks. https://www.express.co.uk/

And some journalists are saying that more talks are on the table suggesting that TM has won at least the right to talk about he WA and concessions.

Yet, when you actually look at the EU press statement http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-19-903_en.htm clearly states:

Bold is mine.

So why is anybody saying it is anything other than the rewording of the PD that the EU have been talking about all along.

It must be nice to be PM of a country who's media is clearly capable of doubblethink.

Brexiteers have been demanding changes to the WA, the EU says the WA will not be reopened and changes to the PD are contingent on the UK changing its red lines. When the PM goes to Brussels and is told this, somehow it becomes a Brexit Victory?

First Up

CelticRambler wrote:

When the same company is operating in two different territories, they can choose whether or not to apply roaming charges to their own customers. That's a commercial decision, and if (for example) Vodafone owns and operates the network, then they can set their rates in any way they want.

But inside the Single Market they can't.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why is anybody saying it is anything other than the rewording of the PD that the EU have been talking about all along.

What do you think conversations are like in places such as BBC production meetings and newspaper editing discussions?

These are, let's be reasonable, intelligent people. They can understand and grasp simple statements.
But to see so many cases where their interpretation is skewed is bewildering.

Along with the above, Laura Keunnsberg tweeted that given that May and Juncker have agreed to meet again later in the month, it indicates that she will not leave empty handed today.
And the BBC published an article on Tusk's comments yesterday without the line "who promoted Brexit" in the heading.



So, are their personal views and desires unconsciously skewing their view of what is happening or are they making a conscious decision to miscommunicate.

I wonder does someone actually say "we can't say that, we need to take out that word and use another one." for example.

Tell me how

I am looking forward excessively to a question on BBC Question Time tonight about Tusk's comments.

I wonder will someone call out the rhetoric from any of the following to counter the outrage.

Daniel Kawczynski, the representative for Shrewsbury, claimed Britain received no money from the Marshall plan, an American initiative agreed in 1948 to give $12bn to help rebuild western Europe. In reality, Britain received around 20% of the money, more than any other country.

At a fringe event in October 2017, Rees-Mogg emphasised the importance of Brexit by declaring it as the “Magna Carta”. He added: “It’s the Burgesses coming at parliament, it’s the great reform bill, it’s the bill of rights, it’s Waterloo, it’s Agincourt, it’s Crécy. We win all of these things.”

David Davis

Comments by then Brexit secretary that if “our civil service can cope with world war II it can easily cope with this”, prompted Garry Graham, the deputy general secretary of Prospect, a trade union which represents civil servants, to point out a flaw in his logic.

Boris Johnson

“Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods,” said Johnson.

prawnsambo

Tell me how wrote: »

I am looking forward excessively to a question on BBC Question Time tonight about Tusk's comments?

I wonder will someone call out the rhetoric from any of the following to counter the outrage.

Or add this from David Davis:

“Get thee behind me, Satan!” he honked, when asked about the European Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt.

Adamcp898

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think conversations are like in places such as BBC production meetings and newspaper editing discussions?

These are, let's be reasonable, intelligent people. They can understand and grasp simple statements.
But to see so many cases where their interpretation is skewed is bewildering.

Along with the above, Laura Keunnsberg tweeted that given that May and Juncker have agreed to meet again later in the month, it indicates that she will not leave empty handed today.
And the BBC published an article on Tusk's comments yesterday without the line "who promoted Brexit" in the heading.



So, are their personal views and desires unconsciously skewing their view of what is happening or are they making a conscious decision to miscommunicate.

I wonder does someone actually say "we can't say that, we need to take out that word and use another one." for example.

Tbf, and this may just be me, but in editorial terms I always got the impression that any time the BBC used the term "Brexiteer" they were referring to MP's who backed Brexit. In that sense their headlines which substitute "those who promoted Brexit" for "Brexiteers" are consistent with whatever house editorial rules for terminology they're using.

It does muddy the water though in countries/outlets where "Brexiteer" is a catch all term for everybody, including the general public, who would support leaving the EU.

ArmaniJeanss

CelticRambler wrote: »

When the same company is operating in two different territories, they can choose whether or not to apply roaming charges to their own customers. That's a commercial decision, and if (for example) Vodafone owns and operates the network, then they can set their rates in any way they want. If you're targetting globetrotting phone users, then being able to tell your customers they'll have calls and data on the same terms on the far side of the world gives you a big marketing advantage.

But presumably the night before you go to Argentina you'll have to double check that the rules haven't changed and that there's no hidden charges beneath the headline zero figure. And the people you travel with may be with a different provider (or have a different deal with the same provider) and not get the same zero roaming fees so won't be able to contact you.

And you'll have little comeback if the company decide to change the fee structure midway through your trip and you don't receive the notification until you get home.

So it's not really anywhere close to the 'within the EU' situation.

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think conversations are like in places such as BBC production meetings and newspaper editing discussions?

These are, let's be reasonable, intelligent people. They can understand and grasp simple statements.
But to see so many cases where their interpretation is skewed is bewildering.

So, are their personal views and desires unconsciously skewing their view of what is happening or are they making a conscious decision to miscommunicate.

I wonder does someone actually say "we can't say that, we need to take out that word and use another one." for example.

I honestly don't know what is going on. With the likes of the Express is pretty obvious, they are speaking to a particular audience. But the BBC should be above that, at least most of the time (for example I have no problem with them bigging up the English Football team or the GB Olympics squad).

But its isn't even the headlines. Adam Fleming was saying that talks show their is possible movement. What did they expect,that Juncker would tell her they were never go to talk again? Regardless of the WA, there is still the matter of a future trade deal, so things will continue on between the UK and the EU.

But, TM went over to the EU with one goal in mind (or at least that what the vote told her to do). She was to get movement on the WA, remove the backstop. She has a committee working on it. Yet she walked out with a joint statement (so she agrees with it) that the WA is not open for discussion.

The single thing she was sent to do, that she whipped he party into voting for last week, so completely and demonstrably failed to achieve.

Yet the likes of the BBC dress it up as possible a holding pattern, a slight delay. When the report should actually be that the WA is totally fixed, TM has only two options, No deal or withdraw A50 (unless she uturns again in her WA).

That is what the reporting should be. Not ifs, but, maybes and I think.

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is an interesting clip of Sayeeda Warsi confirming why David Cameron will always be the worst PM in living history, even if May is trying to beat him to that title.

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1093478425715716101

She basically confirms what we all knew, they only inserted that they would hold a EU membership referendum in their manifesto because they didn't think they would win a majority. They then had to follow through on their manifesto pledge and here we are.

I find it amazing how they always manage to find ways of keeping certain pledges like it'll cause the ends of the earth if they don't and yet jettison others without a thought.

Politics eh?

J Mysterio

listermint wrote: »

And this is the type of stuff a Closed Stormont and Brexit bite back on Ireland can expect.

if the DUP had their way power would revert back to London

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/british-nuclear-waste-facility-could-be-located-near-newry-1.3784563

Fuçkin cheek!! We're already at risk of an attack at Sellafield and now they want to dump their nuclear waste on our island? I would definitely protest this, in person, and I have only once ever attended a rally or protest (solidarity march in Limerick for Collins family).

Working class heroes

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ellenjoelle/status/1093335514105688064


More of yesterday's PR offensive . A strong symbol of support

What an awesome image that is.

Call me Al

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think conversations are like in places such as BBC production meetings and newspaper editing discussions?

These are, let's be reasonable, intelligent people. They can understand and grasp simple statements.
But to see so many cases where their interpretation is skewed is bewildering.

Along with the above, Laura Keunnsberg tweeted that given that May and Juncker have agreed to meet again later in the month, it indicates that she will not leave empty handed today.
And the BBC published an article on Tusk's comments yesterday without the line "who promoted Brexit" in the heading.



So, are their personal views and desires unconsciously skewing their view of what is happening or are they making a conscious decision to miscommunicate.

I wonder does someone actually say "we can't say that, we need to take out that word and use another one." for example.

They were called out on this headline yesterday, rectified it, but persisted all morning again today with omitting those end words on the BBC news ticker, whilst discussing May's Brussels trip. Again. And this production team full well know this changes the context of the statement, but it feeds the baying masses.
BBC current affairs editorial team should hang their heads in shame at the diet of misinformation and rubbish they've been feeding the British public.

Tell me how

Call me Al wrote: »

They were called out on this headline yesterday, rectified it, but persisted all morning again today with omitting those end words on the BBC news ticker, whilst discussing May's Brussels trip. Again. And this production team full well know this changes the context of the statement, but it feeds the baying masses.
BBC current affairs editorial team should hang their heads in shame at the diet of misinformation and rubbish they've been feeding the British public.

Yes, I'm wondering just how those conversations go because within them, someone has to actually give words to the reality that a particular statement makes Brexit look bad and that that is not what they want to report.

Strazdas

Call me Al wrote: »

They were called out on this headline yesterday, rectified it, but persisted all morning again today with omitting those end words on the BBC news ticker, whilst discussing May's Brussels trip. Again. And this production team full well know this changes the context of the statement, but it feeds the baying masses.
BBC current affairs editorial team should hang their heads in shame at the diet of misinformation and rubbish they've been feeding the British public.

One of the SNP MPs pulled up the BBC for not having a British person on their TV bulletins agreeing with Tusk instead of giving the impression that everyone was outraged by him.

The reaction of British people on social media and in newspapers was fascinating : huge numbers of people were supporting him, alongside the hard Brexiteers attacking him.

Water John

Corbyn is supporting changes/additions to the Political Declaration that try to frame the future talks in terms of a Soft Brexit. He has it seems seen off the push in his own Party for a 2nd Ref. That leaves the WA unchanged.
I can live with that and I think it could get the backing of the majority in the HOC.
The PD comes to the fore in the future and Corbyn hopes he'll be in charge by then.
Ireland and the EU are probably best served by a Soft Brexit at this stage. We're better off with the UK outside the tent, but in a close alliance.

BorneTobyWilde

May goes to Brussels and confirms, '' okay I promise there will be a backstop after they leave on 29th March''
WTH
She went there to remove it, and did the opposite, she '' promised'' to keep it.

VinLieger

J Mysterio wrote: »

Fuçkin cheek!! We're already at risk of an attack at Sellafield and now they want to dump their nuclear waste on our island? I would definitely protest this, in person, and I have only once ever attended a rally or protest (solidarity march in Limerick for Collins family).

Who wants to bet the DUP will support this too because they know it would piss us off.

An Ciarraioch

Noticeable that Verhofstadt and Tajani were positive about Corbyn's letter, at least to the extent that they encouraged May to engage in cross-party talks:

http://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1093508600692129792

J Mysterio

Statement by Mary Lou from yesterday, calling May out for talking out of both sides of her mouth.

VinLieger

J Mysterio wrote: »

Statement by Mary Lou from yesterday, calling May out for talking out of both sides of her mouth.

As much as i dislike Mary Lou and SF as well as being of the opinion a UI would be better happening naturally in the decades to come and therefore be far more of a success for the island as a whole, brexit has unfortunately forced the issue and that does make for some compelling watching

Strazdas

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

May goes to Brussels and confirms, '' okay I promise there will be a backstop after they leave on 29th March''
WTH
She went there to remove it, and did the opposite, she '' promised'' to keep it.

It's weasel words unfortunately. She's talking about 'changing' the terms of the backstop or time limiting it ie. making it virtually redundant, which would be as good as scrapping it.

Imreoir2

VinLieger wrote: »

As much as i dislike Mary Lou and SF as well as being of the opinion a UI would be better happening naturally in the decades to come and therefore be far more of a success for the island as a whole, brexit has unfortunately forced the issue and that does make for some compelling watching

There will never be a "good" time for unification, unification will bring upheaval and uncertainty no matter when it happens. If it has to happen, the Brexit crisis is as good a time as any. A unified Ireland will have a better prospect of prospering in the long term than a devided Ireland, especially if one part of Ireland is stranded outside of the EU. In 20 years time we would be far better off if Unification was twenty years behind us than just about to happen.

briany

J Mysterio wrote: »

Statement by Mary Lou from yesterday, calling May out for talking out of both sides of her mouth.

I wouldn't push too hard for a referendum in the immediate event of no-deal if I were Sinn Fein. I think the political atmosphere would be too charged at that time, and if a no-deal had the kind of detrimental effects that are being predicted, those would need some time to be seen, felt and sink in and allow pragmatic Unionism to consider that their future was indeed better in a UI that's part of the EU.

Hurrache

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Noticeable that Verhofstadt and Tajani were positive about Corbyn's letter, at least to the extent that they encouraged May to engage in cross-party talks:

http://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1093508600692129792

With his and labours support, it makes any deal easier to vote through.

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

It's weasel words unfortunately. She's talking about 'changing' the terms of the backstop or time limiting it ie. making it virtually redundant, which would be as good as scrapping it.

She isn't. She has accepted that there will be no change to the WA, the future talks are only going to deal with the PD.

So she has 100% accepted the need for the backstop, as it currently stands within the WA.

Now, how she is going to sell this when she gets home is anyone's guess, but one must presume that she has planned this all along as it all happened so quickly today.

So, May was a Remainer, who turned into a Brexiteer. Agreed a December 17 position, before pulling out and agreeing something similar but confusing enough to allow her room.

She then agreed her WA before turning 180 on that and claiming it was totally unacceptable and marching back to the EU to sort it out.

And then when she gets to the EU she tells them she fully accepts the WA and will, I assume, attempt to get it passed the HoC.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

She isn't. She has accepted that there will be no change to the WA, the future talks are only going to deal with the PD.

So she has 100% accepted the need for the backstop, as it currently stands within the WA.

Now, how she is going to sell this when she gets home is anyone's guess, but one must presume that she has planned this all along as it all happened so quickly today.

So, May was a Remainer, who turned into a Brexiteer. Agreed a December 17 position, before pulling out and agreeing something similar but confusing enough to allow her room.

She then agreed her WA before turning 180 on that and claiming it was totally unacceptable and marching back to the EU to sort it out.

And then when she gets to the EU she tells them she fully accepts the WA and will, I assume, attempt to get it passed the HoC.

It's like the Grand old Duke of York isn't it? He marched them up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again. It's time wasting. For a purpose. To ramp up the pressure on the HoC to do something. Anything. But stop faffing around in the vain hope that the EU will somehow rescue them from the predicament they walked themselves into.

josip

She must realise that she's playing a blinder and is chortling to herself all the way home on Eurostar.
That she has managed to get all the way from the first scheduled vote in December until now, well into February, without changing anything and never intending to, while still comfortably in power, is quite an achievement.
Plus support for her party has increased in the meantime, another bonus.
The only downside is that the UK's economy is about to get flushed, but that's of tertiary importance.

Tell me how

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's like the Grand old Duke of York isn't it? He marched them up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again. It's time wasting. For a purpose. To ramp up the pressure on the HoC to do something. Anything. But stop faffing around in the vain hope that the EU will somehow rescue them from the predicament they walked themselves into.

It will embolden Labour somewhat that they have to be listened to.

prawnsambo

Tell me how wrote: »

It will embolden Labour somewhat that they have to be listened to.

It seems to me that the pressure is on MPs to back something. I get the impression that a lot of Labour MPs are aghast at Corbyn's volte face and could revolt. The thrust of Tusk's remarks yesterday is that he doesn't see any possibility of the UK remaining which puts direct pressure on remain MPs to stop looking for a referendum and either support May's agreement or take the ballsy option of revoking the A50 notice.

It's down to them. No deus ex machina solution.

briany

josip wrote: »

Plus support for her party has increased in the meantime, another bonus.

I think it was Peter O'Toole who once said, "It's not that I'm so great. It's that everyone else is so F___ing awful!"

What's May going to do with the increased support that she isn't attempting to do already? Very little, I expect.