Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Maybe she thinks that, her Deal will sound the most attainable and likely. She is banking on the public wanting to move on even if the Deal is flawed.

She wants the public to support her deal but refuses to actually let the public decide - this is the kind of stuff the media should be asking rather than facilitating a smokescreen

This debate is meaningless as it is between the PM and the leader of the opposition (who actually supports Brexit) and the proper place for it is in Westminster as she is only allowing MPs to vote on the deal

The correct quote is 'punched in the face or your leg sawn off'.
You'll only recover from one. Though never fancied a kick in the nuts as an option, myself any time.

Enzokk wrote: »

Now if there were a second referendum I would not want James O'Brien fighting my side for me as he can be abrasive but that doesn't mean he is not stating the facts. The people will refuse to believe it and will continue double down that they are correct and the other side is wrong.

It really has been an eyeopener the way so many people become entrenched in their views. I suspect that a large motivation for this is simply to avoid admitting that they were wrong. I also think that it is likely that these exist on the remain side as well as the leave just in this instance the evidence is suggesting the leavers are the ones not facing up to the realities.

This, to my mind, makes what the likes of Cambridge Analytica and Steve Bannon were (are) up to incredibly dangerous. If they can get to people, and form their opinions before facts are revealed, then they are more than 90% of the way there.

Other governments and societies should take heed to this and recognize that you cannot just assume people will recognize that things are going pretty well while other bodies are whispering in their ear that they are not.

Maybe Leo recognized this with the expenditure on PR while he is in power (a totally separate and wide ranging topic I know).

Leroy42 wrote: »

What exactly is this debate supposed to achieve. Both these people want Brexit, so it is talking about what type of Brexit, a Crash out of TM Deal.

But Corbyn is totally unclear about what he wants, and totally conflicted with many in his party. So little debate about the actual deal, or even Brexit, TM will focus on the divisions within Labour and try to get Corbyn to finally lay out a position, which of course she will then attack.

A pointless exercise, which will in no way generate any actual info. TM is clearly trying to try to get Corbyn to agree that TM deal is the best on offer and that No Deal is not an option. She needs Labour support and this is a way of forcing Labour into giving it to them.

Its well played by TM (who of course refused to debate for the GE) but not sure why Labour didn't shoot this down from the off.

I actually think it is a logical move by May. She is counting on Corbyn having to either admit the deal is acceptable or show his hand that his party does not have any alternative that is workable.

This might show Labour that they are not in a strong position should there be a GE and so some might reconsider May's offering.

That being said, if Corbyn sticks to the ludicrous position that they could negotiate with the EU for an improved deal if they had the chance, then it probably will end up in the stalemate expected even though there is no time for a GE and renegotiation before the 29th of March.

Corbyn is putting forward a permanent CU as his main plank. I'm sure the EU would extend Art 50 to discuss a closer Deal. TM's Deal is as far as the limit of what the EU will allow, anything less than that would be preferred and would require little time, a few months.

Deleted User wrote: »

Blamed for the backstop stuff resulting in this. I didn't bother saying much. I only talk politics with one friend, a former Brexiter and leave voter, as it happens.

Did they say what they think should have been done instead of the backstop?

It seems the most prescient argument at the moment is which channel will hold the debate.

BBC News

Mr Corbyn claimed he preferred ITV's bid because the BBC plan clashed with the final of I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!

"I want to watch it myself," he said.

A, Should this not be something which is Broadcast on any channel which wishes to show it?
B, It will be interesting if the BBC do host it given the strong and growing accusations of bias.
C, The selection of the chair of the debate will be key
D, Were Channel 4/Sky not in the mix for hosting?
E, If Corbyn did make the point above about the final of IACGMOOH, is it not another example of shockingly blase attitude to the whole thing, even if he was making a joke?

Tell me how wrote: »

It seems the most prescient argument at the moment is which channel will hold the debate.

BBC News



A, Should this not be something which is Broadcast on any channel which wishes to show it?
B, It will be interesting if the BBC do host it given the strong and growing accusations of bias.
C, The selection of the chair of the debate will be key
D, Were Channel 4/Sky not in the mix for hosting?
E, If Corbyn did make the point above about the final of IACGMOOH, is it not another example of shockingly blase attitude to the whole thing, even if he was making a joke?

Point E was obviously a joke. He wants it on ITV since they are more open to the format he wants: a 1 on 1 wide ranging debate not limited to Brexit.

He wants to use this as a platform for a general election campaign.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Sky would be pointless - Pay channel which more people do not have than do (we forget this in Ireland where pay cable and Sky sat are ubiquitous)

It has to be on BBC One or ITV.

Personally I'd like to see Channel 4 with Jon Snow moderating but I suspect he's on the PM's blacklist given she refused to be interviewed by him at the Conservative convention.

Tell me how wrote: »

Blamed by who? In what context were some of the English lads speaking? Were they asked to defend that position?

Do we need to send James O'Brien to take them for a pint?

In fairness, it is all Ireland's fault for being invaded and occupied by the English for 800 years and then having a war of independence and the English saying we could only have 3/4 of the island back, and then decades later following a bloody civil war having a peace process that involved an international treaty signed by the UK and Ireland with conditions that make their current brexit a little bit awkward for them.