Brexit Discussion Thread VI

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Perhaps, but Casey got a huge vote (28% iirc) on the back of one remark that many saw as the first bit of truth on the Traveller issue and as two burned out hotels show you DP is a significant issue as well. I wouldn't call either of these niche tbh.

23.3%

Casey said something notable as part of a staid campaign with a known inevitable end result. You're right that it indicates a level of pent up dissatisfaction with legislative moves on Travellers. It doesn't however indicate that the media has minimised or stonewalled the topic over the years.

It also could indicate that a percentage of those not willing to vote for MDH in an uninspiring campaign went elsewhere to the candidate who had garnered the highest profile during the campaign. I don't think there was any sort of white wash or refusal to engage with his comments. He raised the topic and it was amply discussed.

The issue of hotels being burned has been widely and openly reported. As was the recent incident in Strokestown and follow on incidents. It is not the responsibility of the media to push a particular narrow editorial position on such things. Just put the facts in the public domain.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They point I'm making is you don't see interviewers taking such a hard line on those topics, when hard questions are justified. Correcting farage is easy here when the ideas he pushes have little public support and have no support in the media.

Make no mistake, I love seeing a take down of Farage but the idea that we have "a fine tradition of well informed and fact confident current affairs presenters with a sense of the importance of their role" is a total nonsense.

Again, it's not nonsense. Watch Pat Kenny's handling of the final 8th Amendment debate last May and tell me it was anything other than as described above. Claire Byrne correct a clear factual inaccuracy. I'm open to an example of a media piece on the topics of interest to you where a clear factual inaccuracy is not corrected. Because that's what's required here to prove your point.

Genuinely open to some examples if you have them by the way...

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The time for the Irish media to shine was during the financial crisis and it failed miserably. Just as the UK media has failed miserably over the past three years.

I think the Irish public came out the other side of the financial crisis with a decent understanding of what happened. The media failed to flash the red warning signs 2005 - 2008, but Irish media could hardly be singled out in that regard. The Financial crisis and the decades lead up to same highlighted a capability gap within media for certain areas of public life. We ultimately had authoritative public inquiries into the matter via the Oireachtas that was reported on and debated in Irish media to a substantive degree. What more would you have expected from your media in this regard?

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That 1/8 is to leave with a deal OR to see A50 extended so it’s by far the likeliest outcome (as odds suggest). Particularly if Brady amendment is passed which seems likely.

do you mean the cooper amendment?

Corbyn finally making some positive moves:

http://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1090252200230690819

I wonder if we will see both Brady and Grieve pass? Or will it only be the one? What happens when no amendment passes? I think Cooper is in trouble as it will need the Tory rebels to back it. Would there be a deal for Labour to support Grieve if the rebels support Cooper?

Edit: answered above from An Ciarraioch

I'm listening to LBC's coverage of todays HOC proceedings.

The pro-brexit callers have not got a single clue about what is happening. They know some of the words, and they know what they're supposed to think about those words, but they don't know what any of those words actually mean. They get their information from tabloid papers, facebook memes and some bloke down the pub and haven't got the capacity to assess the truth of their information and think for themselves.

It is blindingly obvious that they do not know what the following things mean
'Backstop'
'Withdrawal agreement'
'World Trade Organisation Rules'
'Single Market'
'Customs Union'
'Free Trade Agreement'
'Deal'
'No Deal'
'Democracy'
'Parliamentary sovereignty'
'Cooperation'
'Multilateral'
Etc etc etc.

These brexiteers who feel the need to call into national radio stations to voice their opinion on a political debate are so confident that they know what they're talking about until they are asked to clarify a single point they're trying to make. They fundamentally lack the understanding and depth of knowledge required to hold a coherent position on this topic.

And these are the people who Theresa May is trying to pander to.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm listening to LBC's coverage of todays HOC proceedings.

The pro-brexit callers have not got a single clue about what is happening. They know some of the words, and they know what they're supposed to think about those words, but they don't know what any of those words actually mean. They get their information from tabloid papers, facebook memes and some bloke down the pub and haven't got the capacity to assess the truth of their information and think for themselves.

It is blindingly obvious that they do not know what the following things mean
'Backstop'
'Withdrawal agreement'
'World Trade Organisation Rules'
'Single Market'
'Customs Union'
'Free Trade Agreement'
'Deal'
'No Deal'
'Democracy'
'Parliamentary sovereignty'
'Cooperation'
'Multilateral'
Etc etc etc.

These brexiteers who feel the need to call into national radio stations to voice their opinion on a political debate are so confident that they know what they're talking about until they are asked to clarify a single point they're trying to make. They fundamentally lack the understanding and depth of knowledge required to hold a coherent position on this topic.

And these are the people who Theresa May is trying to pander to.

I stopped watching Question Time for these reasons. Too depressing.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I stopped watching Question Time for these reasons. Too depressing.

You missed the leaver in the audience in derby a couple of weeks ago declaring that as the eu was in the clutches of recession, now was not the time to be rowing back on red lines. “Maximum leverage,” he bellowed as the audience clapped and cheered around him. It would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so depressing.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You missed the leaver in the audience in derby a couple of weeks ago declaring that as the eu was in the clutches of recession, now was not the time to be rowing back on red lines. “Maximum leverage,” he bellowed as the audience clapped and cheered around him. It would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so depressing.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The more uninformed the opinion, the more bellicose the speaker and the louder the cheers.

Just a fun aside

I had a *friend* from university (I studied in UK and friend is very loose term these days) asking about the idea of Irexit, that much like Humphry's earlier this week stating that Ireland leaving the EU would solve all these issues.

I actually had a bit of fun humouring him and pointing out, even in the absurd scenario that Ireland goes for an Irexit, it wouldnt help the UK at all when you actually thought through the process needed.

For Irexit to even start you'd need a referendum.

So we are looking at a year minimum (and that's being super generous) for a proper referendum question to be drawn up. Unlike the UK we cant and wont stick a stupid "Irexit Yes or No" question, chances are very high a Irexit referendum will be a shopping list of changes to our constitution removing articles and adding new ones etc.

That will take a hell of a lot of time to draw up and be approved. So a year minimum, much more likely you'd be looking at 2-3.

Then another year for the date to be set and to have the campaign and results.

and then finally another 2 years on top of that when article 50 is activated.


Any point in this things can go tits up and things are delayed.

but it was a minimum of 5 years until Ireland would also be out of the EU

And they wouldnt know until 3 years from now if the people even supported Irexit.

How does any of that help the UK currently in Brexit? The EU wouldnt give any agreements based on a result they wont know for 3 years from now.


Friend just nodded and muttered "I though you could just leave with us"

Adamcp898 wrote: »

The latest attempts to make sense of all this. The reason Brady is being backed now is because they know it doesn't have a hope and so it's a means to wind the clock down further towards the "No-deal" Brexit that some MP's want.

Frankly, I thought the time to stop assuming any of this was done rationally passed long ago.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1090276842488123392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090276842488123392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-47030804

I've been assuming the whole crisis over the backstop was an intentional ploy by those who want specifically no deal to clog up the whole process and wind the clock down.

I got the impression most of them if given the choice would have cut northern ireland loose years ago.

Even the sensible amendments are worded annoyingly. Trying to give parliament the right to extend A50.

You cant do this without agreement. Give parliament the right to ask the EU to extend A50 sure. But its so depressing that even the sensible ones(relatively) don't get it

ERG love the idea of asking the EU for what they know will not be granted. I wouldn't sup with Mogg with a 40 ft pole. Any remainers dealing with him are foolish.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

More gossip from Laura K.

No news, nor insight. Depressing.

Tbf she's retweeting other people's gossip, Was another political commentator's.

I guess the "news" they're trying to communicate is that most MP's are still uneasy about it all at best and that it's not the happy-go-lucky "rallying" atmosphere that was beginning to be portrayed of the Tory party this morning. Not that that should qualify as news exactly.

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Two plus years of groundhog day. No point in further negotiations with that.

It is actually 5 years of Groundhog day. Did you see the documentary on BBC last night about the build up to the referendum? Cameron was back and forth to Brussels with his red lines looking for concessions under threat of calling a referendum. Then, even when he called the referendum, he was back and forth to Brussels with his red lines under threat of not supporting remain.