Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Capt'n Midnight

briany wrote: »

If you don't give voice to wingnuts, then the wingnuts are free to claim that the main media outlets are not to be trusted as a reliable source of information, and they are gleefully pushing that idea in the shadows.

And if you do get them on, and you have experts on to refute their claims, they go playing the victim that it was hit piece, or that the moderator was siding against them.

You don't give wingnuts 50% of the airtime.

Especially when you know the wingnut tactic is to bog down the debate by spewing so much random nonsense it's impossible to dismiss them in the remaining 50% of time, nevermind putting your own points across.


You do let some wingnuts on but the host has to call them out on falsehoods and refuse to continue if necessary.


Journalism is about the truth not providing both sides with an equal opportunity to lie unchecked.

J Mysterio

Don't give these people the legitimacy they crave.

briany

J Mysterio wrote: »

They are best ignored and/ or laughed at, not platformed.

That used to work back when the likes of RTE and the BBC were the main sources of information. But we're now treating a 21st century problem with 20th century tactics. Reading about WW1, one of the things that made that war so disastrous was that it was 20th century weapons being met with 19th century tactics. The solution there was to modify battle plans to fit what was being met on the battlefield. In today's battlefield of thought, a similar thing will need to happen. It won't really work simply to ignore the wingnuts because the wingnuts use this as a weapon - that they are being suppressed for telling the truth, and they have a powerful means by which to spread this in social media, totally outflanking traditional media.

listermint

briany wrote: »

This raises a really interesting point and a question I have - One I'm not sure there is a totally satisfactory answer to...

The likes of RTE and BBC, as mainstream media outlets, are coming under increasing criticism of pushing a certain narrative, but when they try to be balanced by having the likes of O'Neill on, they're also criticised for giving a platform to wingnuts.

So, how do they really be balanced if they don't also give voice to the extreme opinions that seem to be increasingly popping up. It seems a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont.

Simple don't invite opinion journalist's on. The audience isn't looking for it .no one asked for it. Bring on the politicians of whatever persuasion and there's your two sides.or accredited people with industry backgrounds to argue two sides.


Leave the self promotion show types out

Leroy42

briany wrote: »

That used to work back when the likes of RTE and the BBC were the main sources of information. But we're now treating a 21st century problem with 20th century tactics. Reading about WW1, one of the things that made that war so disastrous was that it was 20th century weapons being met with 19th century tactics. The solution there was to modify battle plans to fit what was being met on the battlefield. In today's battlefield of thought, a similar thing will need to happen. It won't really work simply to ignore the wingnuts because the wingnuts use this as a weapon - that they are being suppressed for telling the truth, and they have a powerful means by which to spread this in social media, totally outflanking traditional media.

Bring them on, but don't just let them talk rubbish. Ireland should leave the EU for example. Why? is the next logical question. What would the benefits be, what would the costs be, would then operate as an 'island' or join a different union?

On what evidence as you basing the opinion on? Do they have polls, data? ON what basis are they judging that it is a bad deal for Ireland in the EU? GDP, average wage, world standing, football teams, the weather?

If you make it a difficult time then they will be less likely to want to go on and spout nonsense, knowing they will be held up on it.

Lumen

Leroy42 wrote: »

Bring them on, but don't just let them talk rubbish. Ireland should leave the EU for example. Why? is the next logical question. What would the benefits be, what would the costs be, would then operate as an 'island' or join a different union?

On what evidence as you basing the opinion on? Do they have polls, data? ON what basis are they judging that it is a bad deal for Ireland in the EU? GDP, average wage, world standing, football teams, the weather?

If you make it a difficult time then they will be less likely to want to go on and spout nonsense, knowing they will be held up on it.

I do not believe this works, and offer as evidence the Brexit referendum.

The lunatics are well able to deflect and move goalposts, and the result is that viewers believe that there are two legitimate points of view and they are free to pick the one they feel most comfortable with.

PropJoe10

J Mysterio wrote: »

It is so unusual.

She really was one of the worst ever PMs. Ever. But now with Johnson, she seems like a paragon of virtue and sense, saying the things that need to be said. The comparison to Clarke is quite apt Bringing a sense of justice and decency. It's bizarre though. If anything it really amplifies the fact that the Tory party at large is just packed to the rafters with seedy yes men and career boot lickers.

Something that I like though is that she has stayed on and not just fecked off. So many former PMs just retire from public life once their premiership has ended, which is a shame really (oftentimes).

May was never a Brexiteer anyway, so I'd say she's extremely relieved to be back on the backbenches and able to speak her mind to a certain degree. She was her own worst enemy when PM - calling that stupid snap election, and pandering to the ERG really led to her downfall.

Kenneth Clarke is just after being added to the House of Lords. They could use his sense and experience in the Commons at the moment!

Leroy42

I agree it didn't work in either the Brexit, or I would say as well, the Trump election. But that is because the interviewer is treating the person as an expert, They are not. They have an opinion and it is quite right that such an opinion is questioned.

They let Farage, for example, spout off lots of stuff during the ref. He mentioned Norway for example, and the QT presenter never brought up tat Norway accept EU standards, that they pay into the EU.

A simply line of 'that is your opinion, what do you have in terms of backup for that' would immediately put them on the defensive. Of course they will simply shift the goalposts, but simply ask the same type of question again.

One thing that is obvious is that the vast majority of these have no actual facts to base their opinion

johnnyskeleton

Gintonious wrote: »

I am fully convinced now that O'Neil is a pisstaker at this stage. How anyone could write that and be serious is beyond me.

I feel sorry for him. He clearly hates whatever dubious Irish ancestry he has and wants to lash out. It's funny that an article purporting to give Ireland advice isn't really aimed at an Irish audience at all. Nonsense about annexation of UK territory really only has one base that he aims for.

As ACD has said above, he's a marxist who ran out of money and is now a professional provocateur, which isn't exactly an original position to take.

Normally I quite like a rage read of brexit supporters, but that article was just so lacking in any real argument it hurts to read

briany

Lumen wrote: »

I do not believe this works, and offer as evidence the Brexit referendum.

The lunatics are well able to deflect and move goalposts, and the result is that viewers believe that there are two legitimate points of view and they are free to pick the one they feel most comfortable with.

That's definitely a concern. The wingnuts have developed a brand of rhetoric and become quite skilled in delivering it.

listermint wrote: »

Simple don't invite opinion journalist's on. The audience isn't looking for it .no one asked for it. Bring on the politicians of whatever persuasion and there's your two sides.or accredited people with industry backgrounds to argue two sides.


Leave the self promotion show types out

That's an option, but having journalists on is a way to unpack and offer analysis on events of the day. I accept that these days there's more and more of an idea that these people all have an agenda, but that's not any less true for members of a political party coming on to argue instead.

As for your activist types, I agree that it's best to leave out ones who are well on the periphery, but if you leave out the ones who are gaining a following then you run the risk of being out of touch as a media outlet and aren't really in touch with the people on the street. An idea that said activist types run with all the way.

Capt'n Midnight

PropJoe10 wrote: »

May was never a Brexiteer anyway, so I'd say she's extremely relieved to be back on the backbenches and able to speak her mind to a certain degree. She was her own worst enemy when PM - calling that stupid snap election, and pandering to the ERG really led to her downfall.

If she wasn't a Brexiteer why did she do those things ?

She didn't have to trigger Article 50 when she did. She didn't even have to trigger it. Even if she did she didn't have to do it without being getting clarifications.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree it didn't work in either the Brexit, or I would say as well, the Trump election. But that is because the interviewer is treating the person as an expert, They are not. They have an opinion and it is quite right that such an opinion is questioned.

They let Farage, for example, spout off lots of stuff during the ref. He mentioned Norway for example, and the QT presenter never brought up tat Norway accept EU standards, that they pay into the EU.

A simply line of 'that is your opinion, what do you have in terms of backup for that' would immediately put them on the defensive. Of course they will simply shift the goalposts, but simply ask the same type of question again.

One thing that is obvious is that the vast majority of these have no actual facts to base their opinion

Understandably, in many cases, the interviewers own views do influence how an interview is held.
So often we see an interview finish with people screaming, 'why didn't they ask this question' etc. Because they either consciously or subconsciously are aligned with the message of the interviewee and take their words as sufficient.

It's a weird dynamic because you want someone interested enough in the subject matter to be able to consider the full scope of the topic but their interest then understandably leads to them having an opinion and so that either does come to the fore, or is accused of having played a part by people who aren't in favour of how the interview went.

Is there any interviewer left who is seen to be truly unbiased in their work? Has there ever been one?

listermint

Lumen wrote: »

I do not believe this works, and offer as evidence the Brexit referendum.

The lunatics are well able to deflect and move goalposts, and the result is that viewers believe that there are two legitimate points of view and they are free to pick the one they feel most comfortable with.

Showcasing these people on national TV in legitimate shows quite literally legitimises their opinion as valid the very being on means they have clear standing and people with already half views will just be confirmed otherwise why would they be on my screen.

It's a pointless exercise. The information they spout doesn't even matter anyway.

briany

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If she wasn't a Brexiteer why did she do those things ?

She didn't have to trigger Article 50 when she did. She didn't even have to trigger it. Even if she did she didn't have to do it without being getting clarifications.

David Cameron certainly was no Brexiteer either, and did not have to put forward the idea of an EU referendum, but one person does not a party make. It seems Cameron made his decision based on internal party politics. I suspect May signed A50 when she did and then attempted to straddle the divide for two years for the same reason.

johnnyskeleton

briany wrote: »

This raises a really interesting point and a question I have - One I'm not sure there is a totally satisfactory answer to...

The likes of RTE and BBC, as mainstream media outlets, are coming under increasing criticism of pushing a certain narrative, but when they try to be balanced by having the likes of O'Neill on, they're also criticised for giving a platform to wingnuts.

So, how do they really be balanced if they don't also give voice to the extreme opinions that seem to be increasingly popping up. It seems a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont.

On the Brexit issue, it's fairly easy. They can have someone to fact check the claims made by each side when it comes to factual issues. They can have a report that states in an impartial way what exactly the position is. Then, when it comes to matters of opinion, they can have two people of widely differing opinions on but, if they made deliberately misleading statements they are called up on it.

I guess the BBC's problem is not that they have two unequal sides to a debate, but that they feel that they cannot fact check or reign in one side, as that could be perceived as biased. But it seems only fair to me.

However, in any event, I doubt things at the BBC are going to be fact checking Brexit nonsense any time soon, after Johnson's new appointment.

Capt'n Midnight

briany wrote: »

David Cameron certainly was no Brexiteer either, and did not have to put forward the idea of an EU referendum, but one person does not a party make.

He was warned not to do it. He'd a good run at taking gambles with the EU and just kept pushing his luck.

He didn't take any precautions. Making the referendum non-binding meant that the normal rules didn't apply. So Leave could spend and lie it's heart out.

Even though it was non-binding he accepted the result.

He or May could have turned around and torpedoed Brexit by asking the public one simple question "what sort of Brexit do you want" instead of letting the extremists define "the will of the people" Could easily have stalled for years with Royal Commissions, citizens assemblies, a new referendum with realistic choices.

Labour and the Lib Dems too take a large share of the blame.

briany

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

He was warned not to do it. He'd a good run at taking gambles with the EU and just kept pushing his luck.

He didn't take any precautions. Making the referendum non-binding meant that the normal rules didn't apply. So Leave could spend and lie it's heart out.

Even though it was non-binding he accepted the result.

He or May could have turned around and torpedoed Brexit by asking the public one simple question "what sort of Brexit do you want" instead of letting the extremists define "the will of the people" Could easily have stalled for years with Royal Commissions, citizens assemblies, a new referendum with realistic choices.

Labour and the Lib Dems too take a large share of the blame.

He was taking gambles with the EU in a losing effort to keep his party onside and try to stave off the rise of UKIP as a real political force. I think a big part of the problem was that Brexit was really the culmination of a decades-long Eurosceptic project within the Conservatives that was suddenly buoyed right up by the recession and the migrant crisis. By the time it penetrated the bubble of Cameron, the movement had too much steam and asking for a period of reasoned procedural debate would have been seen as stalling. Cameron instead went with something direct in a bid to increase the Conservative grip on power. It kept him in power, but at quite the cost to his own political legacy.

It doesn't really matter that the referendum was non-binding when Cameron stupidly made that promise to implement what the public chose. Giving your word like that makes it binding in the eyes of the public.

Capt'n Midnight

briany wrote: »

He was taking gambles with the EU in a losing effort to keep his party onside and try to stave off the rise of UKIP as a real political force.
...

It doesn't really matter that the referendum was non-binding when Cameron stupidly made that promise to implement what the public chose. Giving your word like that makes it binding in the eyes of the public.

In both cases the approach should have been to let the public decide what sort of Brexit they wanted.

Stall for time and hope for in-fighting amongst the leavers that want minor changes and those that wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Instead they let Homer Simpson design that car.

BlitzKrieg

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If she wasn't a Brexiteer why did she do those things ?

She didn't have to trigger Article 50 when she did. She didn't even have to trigger it. Even if she did she didn't have to do it without being getting clarifications.

It will be hopefully a fun read in the far future looking back athe 2016 - 2020 period of politics in the UK, sadly it's not been fun living through them.

But there are so many questions both to brexiteers and remainers in the tory party during this period.

Such as how did May win the party leadership? I mean 3 years later Boris is able to walk to victory on a brexiteer vote, yet in 2016 the brexiteers couldnt agree on anything. At the time we chalked up Boris not running as either him smartly knowing it was poison chalice until brexit was resolved. Now it feels like we are giving him way too much f*cking credit and it was really about him being upset that Gove decided to run too.

Then there is the notion that May winning was seen as a win for 'soft brexit' and yet she rapidly pushed to press the article 50 button while she still held a majority.

Then she loses this majority so they are stuck faffing about for best part of 2 years with the DUP who are frankly too stupid to not realise the prize that was being offered to them. Then Boris walks into power, gets back the majority and still proceeds to faff about over brexit, destroying any notion that he was some slick political mastermind.

Then we have everyone jumping at shadows over dominc cummings. If boris has been shown to be the emperor with no clothes on maybe perhaps politicians should stop being scared of this jumped up digital stormtrooper. but nope, everyone still seems to be scared of him or think he's some media mastermind. Guess it pays dividends to be played by benedict cumberbatch in a tv movie.


The tories have frankly been their own worse enemies in the last 4 years and when you lay out their actions over brexit since 2016 how can you blame anyone but them. I'd accuse some of them of intentional self sabotage but we've already seen that we've given them too much credit already.

fash

Lumen wrote: »

I do not believe this works, and offer as evidence the Brexit referendum.

The lunatics are well able to deflect and move goalposts, and the result is that viewers believe that there are two legitimate points of view and they are free to pick the one they feel most comfortable with.

I agree. Bringing them on brings legitimacy. There is no way to stop the lying fast enough.
I agree with the statement above: why have opinion journalists on we all? What do they add? They aren't "responsible" for their opinion - they can say what they want without personal consequence. The 21st century war isn't going to be won that way.
It is one thing to allow politicians on who have already been elected by the people and so have a certain "legitimacy" because of that - but not some random person whose public existence and income are derived from forming deliberately false but provocative positions.

fash

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In both cases the approach should have been to let the public decide what sort of Brexit they wanted.

Stall for time and hope for in-fighting amongst the leavers that want minor changes and those that wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Instead they let Homer Simpson design that car.

Or attach yourself to another "legitimate" ideological voice which creates problems for Brexiters. "Of course in order to have Brexit, we need to give equal voice to the 4 nations of the UK - that is the spirit of the modern devolved UK. That is our obligation under the GFA in NI, that is responsible governance following the Scotland referendum & devolution" etc."
You create a significant hurdle and practical problems for Brexiters to getting Brexit - and it is hard(er) for them to have to argue things like "we shouldn't listen to the people in NI" "Devolution is a bad idea" etc.

Hermy

I always got the sense that May was trying present herself as another Thatcher as though making these rash decisions would be perceived as her stamping her authority on the situation when it did nothing of the sort.

Peregrinus

Hermy wrote: »

I always got the sense that May was trying present herself as another Thatcher as though making these rash decisions would be perceived as her stamping her authority on the situation when it did nothing of the sort.

I got the sense that May was, in truth, a Leaver, and always had been. But she didn't feel very strongly about it; it wasn't what she came into politics to do and she wasn't willing to expend political capital on it. So, judging that Remainw as likely to win the referendum, she thought it wise to pose as a Remainer during the campaign, and did in fact give one very watery pro-Remain speech. But I never found her pro-Remain stance convincing.

Neither did Brexiters, judging by the general welcome she received when elevated to the party leadership.

I think she was a Leaver by instinct, but hadn't thought too deeply about it and wasn't on top of the issues involved in Leaving. And, when she had to frame a strategy and objectives she spend some time burbling about "Brexit means Brexit" and "a red, white and blue Brexit" while looking into her own heart to discover why she was a Leaver. And what she discovered is that she is a xenophobic leaver. (Which shouldn't come as a huge surprise, given her record as Home Secretary.) The primary thing, to her thinking, that should acrue from Brexit was an end to freedom of movement.

Thus when she staked out her initial Brexit position (in the Lancaster House speech) and subsequently when she modified or compromised it, the one thing she would never yield on was that the UK would not participate in the Single Market (even though doing so would have been wholly compatible with the referendum outcome). Participation in the Single Market involved accepting freedom of movement; the Brexit project was pointless if it did not involve ending freedom of movement.

Therefore the UK must exit not only the EU but the EEA as well. And the fallout from that - the threat to the Irish border, the problems for UK trade and business, the congestion at the Channel ports - was to be managed as best it could be, by radical measures if necessary, but not by participating in the Single Market.

Lumen

May was reportedly obsessed with immigration, particularly at the Home Office. She completely failed to "take control of the borders" as Home Sec, and this was not the EU's fault. Apart from the usual bureacratic incompetence, to have even a chance of controlling who is in and out of the country you need strong identity, and the British are culturally opposed to identity cards (see doomed id card project of the early noughties), associating them with nasty European dictators. Oh, the delicious irony!

Sam Russell

Lumen wrote: »

May was reportedly obsessed with immigration, particularly at the Home Office. She completely failed to "take control of the borders" as Home Sec, and this was not the EU's fault. Apart from the usual bureacratic incompetence, to have even a chance of controlling who is in and out of the country you need strong identity, and the British are culturally opposed to identity cards (see doomed id card project of the early noughties), associating them with nasty European dictators. Oh, the delicious irony!

The ID cards fiasco was typical of UK politics. They start with a basic idea and then they get the 'While we are at it, it would be good to add *****, it will make the scheme much better'. Of course, a few iterations of that and the costs mount to huge amounts and the scheme gets attacked from a civil liberties pov and of course the costs are enormous and far outweigh the benefits.

We have seen this with the track and trace scheme that cost huge amounts and did not work. Add the alacrity with which this Tory Gov hands out high value contracts to party friends, many of who are wholly unqualified, then we can see where this is all leading to.

Lumen

Sam Russell wrote: »

The ID cards fiasco

Interesting. I did not realise that they'd survived as the "biometric residence permit (BRP)".

They are apparently one piece of evidence that an employer can rely on for right to work. So I guess the effect is that (just as in the US) people who don't have the right to work, currently ex-EU but conceivably EU after Brexit, are forced into the shadow economy where they...don't pay any taxes.

LuckyLloyd

McGiver wrote: »

Latest Brendan O'Neil's intellectual vomit.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/17/its-time-for-ireland-to-grow-up/



Some of this are outright lies. This guy needs to head his head checked, if he really believes his pamphlets. If he doesn't then he's just a dirty extreme Tory propagandist. Nobody will ever agree with this nonsense in Ireland if this was meant for an Irish audience. How ironic he is of Irish descent apparently.

In some ways this is about as honest a submission from Brendan ‘of Irish stock’ O’Neill will give you. He is probably quite genuinely depressed that Ireland retains a cohesive faith in the EU and that “Irexit” stuff hasn’t gotten off the ground. Ireland would be much stronger leverage for the U.K. in Brexit negotiations if we had an active anti Eu party destabilising our body politic on the issue and undermining the EU position. That has never materialised and zealots like Brendan probably can’t understand why.

Strazdas

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In some ways this is about as honest a submission from Brendan ‘of Irish stock’ O’Neill will give you. He is probably quite genuinely depressed that Ireland retains a cohesive faith in the EU and that “Irexit” stuff hasn’t gotten off the ground. Ireland would be much stronger leverage for the U.K. in Brexit negotiations if we had an active anti Eu party destabilising our body politic on the issue and undermining the EU position. That has never materialised and zealots like Brendan probably can’t understand why.

The whole Ireland, the border and Brexit thing illustrates how Brexit was never actually thought through by its supporters pre-2016. It was always a hair brained idea thought up by ideological cranks, but in most normal countries, such cranks wouldn't even be given the time of day, never mind be in a position to put their fantasies into practise.

Lumen

Strazdas wrote: »

The whole Ireland, the border and Brexit thing illustrates how Brexit was never actually thought through by its supporters pre-2016. It was always a hair brained idea thought up by ideological cranks, but in most normal countries, such cranks wouldn't even be given the time of day, never mind be in a position to put their fantasies into practise.

I think you are overreaching slightly there.

There are several countries that have low-friction land borders with the EU, like Norway and Switzerland.

There is nothing in principle which prevents a similar non-contentious border on the island of Ireland, provided that the process carries the population of northern Ireland with it, in the spirit of genuinely respectful consultation.

If Cameron had recognised that at the time, and had the charisma to put the case across convincingly, then we all might have spent the last four years moving slowly towards something tolerable to all parties, if everything had gone right.

Unfortunately Cameron threw his toys out of the pram and exited stage right, and Theresa May eventually stumbled into invoking article 50, thus losing control of the timeline.

Added to the problem of Tory party dysfunction and this being at heart an English nationalist project whose most opinionated advocates have a simpleton's view of the north as some kind of Wales-with-flegs, and all chances of this going well went down the toilet.

But it could have been OK.

Winters

Strazdas wrote: »

The whole Ireland, the border and Brexit thing illustrates how Brexit was never actually thought through by its supporters pre-2016. It was always a hair brained idea thought up by ideological cranks, but in most normal countries, such cranks wouldn't even be given the time of day, never mind be in a position to put their fantasies into practise.

I thank our PR and STV for providing some of the safeguards against the kind of two party systems and binary politics that are unfolding in other countries but we arent immune to any unstable politics that can arise. Unification will be our Brexit if it ever comes to pass.