Brexit - the next steps

[jeremyp]

They fall into the trap of presenting every statement of against/for as having equal validity.

This is exactly the problem. The BBC has a duty to provide balance even if one point of view is clearly less credible than another. They are not allowed to editorialise.

[ippy]

It only became contentious, ippy, because a hapless Tory PM (Cameron) decided he could paint the lunatic Eurosceptic fringe of his own party into a corner: he failed, and never planned for the possibility that some sections of the electorate would be hoodwinked by a bunch of self-serving liars. There was no pressing public demand for Brexit prior to the 2015 GE.

In fact only the year before that GE, in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, this same Tory PM told us Scots that to stay in the EU we needed to stay in the UK - Brexit wasn't supposed to happen you see, and the electorate were supposed to tell the ERG nutters to go away and stop annoying everybody.

Now we seen what is, in effect, a political coup by right-wing politicians who seem, according to some reports, determined to get their way by fair means or foul: hopefully they can yet be stopped.

As I said before I don't think remainers are idiots, in my opinion they've just got it wrong and I can't see that either side'll ever agree therefore referendum, remain lost in theory that should be end of story.

Regards, ippy

[Stranger]

As I said before I don't think remainers are idiots, in my opinion they've just got it wrong...

You're telling people that they're wrong but you won't say why. This is why it looks like you're basing your view on blind faith. You mentioned the European court and a "federal Europe" but you won't say what's so bad about them that you'd risk so much to get rid of them.

There are plenty of things about the UK I think are wrong: the unelected House of Lords, the monarchy, the first past the post voting system, to name a few - and sure, I'd vote to get rid of them, but not if the risks were like those of a no-deal Brexit.

...and I can't see that either side'll ever agree therefore referendum, remain lost in theory that should be end of story.

Once again you are simply ignoring the points people have made about this.

[Gordon]

As I said before I don't think remainers are idiots, in my opinion they've just got it wrong and I can't see that either side'll ever agree therefore referendum, remain lost in theory that should be end of story.

Regards, ippy

Remainers got it 'wrong' in what sense?

It seems to me you are confirming what I've long suspected - that those voting 'leave' had no real idea of what they were voting for and, more to the point, neither did the politicians involved in promoting 'leave'.

[jeremyp]

As I said before I don't think remainers are idiots, in my opinion they've just got it wrong and I can't see that either side'll ever agree therefore referendum, remain lost in theory that should be end of story.

Regards, ippy

Can you name same things that were wrong with the EU that had an impact on you personally? Or some things that the Leavers got right that are going to improve your life?

[ippy]

I've just finished reading Robin Aitkens book, 'The Noble Liar', it's how the BBC works absolutely in a nutshell though it is a pity he went into godhead mode toward the middle of the book though.

ippy

[Harrowby Hall]

What has this to do with jeremyp's questions which you constantly are refusing to answer? 

My guess is that you have no answer, that you never even questioned the wisdom of leaving the EU - but living in the past seemed more attractive than living in the future.

[ippy]

What has this to do with jeremyp's questions which you constantly are refusing to answer? 

My guess is that you have no answer, that you never even questioned the wisdom of leaving the EU - but living in the past seemed more attractive than living in the future.

'Guess away' and have a go at that book, try reading it, up until the godhead section he's expressing more or less everything about how I feel about brexit but I have to admit his English is a lot betterer than wot mine is.

ippy 

[Aruntraveller]

'Guess away' and have a go at that book, try reading it, up until the godhead section he's expressing more or less everything about how I feel about brexit but I have to admit his English is a lot betterer than wot mine is.

ippy

So surprise, surprise. You agree with him when he backs up your feelings, and you don't when he doesn't.

Rational thinking?

I think not.

[SteveH]

So surprise, surprise. You agree with him when he backs up your feelings, and you don't when he doesn't.

Rational thinking?

I think not.

Well, obviously. Why the sarcasm? Some people on here just can't help themsleves - they seem to be instinctively sarcastic, and do it almost without realising. It gets very tiresome.

[Stranger]

'Guess away' and have a go at that book, try reading it, up until the godhead section he's expressing more or less everything about how I feel about brexit...

And does he manage to come up with any real, practical harm the EU does to ordinary people, or even to the country, that would justify the real risks to real people's jobs, the economy, and the integrity of the UK, posed by a no-deal?

[Aruntraveller]

Well, obviously. Why the sarcasm? Some people on here just can't help themsleves - they seem to be instinctively sarcastic, and do it almost without realising. It gets very tiresome.

When I need lessons in hypocrisy I now know where to come.

I only use sarcasm when all other options have failed. They have in the case of this particular poster.

[Nearly Sane]

So after Caroline Lucas's attempt at pulling the opposition to Brexit failed, here's Corbyn's attempt failing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49352250

[Anchorman]

So after Caroline Lucas's attempt at pulling the opposition to Brexit failed, here's Corbyn's attempt failing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49352250

   


The idea has some merit; but I very much doubt some otherwise amenable Tories would serve a Corbyn PM-ship, no matter how brief.
I've heard reports that some suggest Kenneth Clark as an alternative; yes, he's a Tory, but he has no leadereship ambitions and has already intimated he would stand down at the next GE.

[Outrider]

This is exactly the problem. The BBC has a duty to provide balance even if one point of view is clearly less credible than another. They are not allowed to editorialise.

They are allowed to editorialise, and frequently do - look at the difference in outlook between Andrew Neil's descriptions of The Mash Report and their response to it.  Collectively, the various elements of the BBC shouldn't favour any given agenda, but they do have an obligation to truth and accuracy.

The problem is that balance doesn't mean giving equal weight to each side of any argument, because the arguments on various sides do not have equal validity - that was the conclusion into the review of the coverage of climate science and the rebuke by Ofcom that was given to Radio 4 for continuing to listen to Nigel Lawson's fabricated nonsense on climate changes.  Balance REQUIRES an editorial judgement, that's why it's the editorial choices that make the Daily Mail and the Guardian have vastly different outlooks, how the BBC manages to offend both sets of readership on a regular basis.  It's also how the mere existence of 'codes of conduct' on the likes of Facebook and Twitter, which are editorial codes by another name, belie their claims to be 'platforms not publishers'.

O.

[wigginhall]

   


The idea has some merit; but I very much doubt some otherwise amenable Tories would serve a Corbyn PM-ship, no matter how brief.
I've heard reports that some suggest Kenneth Clark as an alternative; yes, he's a Tory, but he has no leadereship ambitions and has already intimated he would stand down at the next GE.

I thought Corbyn's idea is a logical step, as the opposition have first dibs if a VONC succeeds, plus its temporary nature.  The Lib Dems were quick off the block denouncing it.  I guess they prefer Brexit to Corbyn.  And probably Tory MPs would find it impossible.  Boris is grinning.

[ippy]

So surprise, surprise. You agree with him when he backs up your feelings, and you don't when he doesn't.

Rational thinking?

I think not.

Yes mostly, his book is quite rational up until the godhead sections but it's still a very good read.

I doubt you'd like the pre-godhead BBC/Guardian, (what's the difference), parts where he's explaining the roots of their brexit bias and I can see it would probably seem irrational to any remainer.

ippy

[ippy]

And does he manage to come up with any real, practical harm the EU does to ordinary people, or even to the country, that would justify the real risks to real people's jobs, the economy, and the integrity of the UK, posed by a no-deal?

I have to admit and agree with your intimation that this brexit is the most divisive political event of most of our lifetimes.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

   


The idea has some merit; but I very much doubt some otherwise amenable Tories would serve a Corbyn PM-ship, no matter how brief.
I've heard reports that some suggest Kenneth Clark as an alternative; yes, he's a Tory, but he has no leadereship ambitions and has already intimated he would stand down at the next GE.

I suppose the issue with it is there is no point in promising a referendum following a general election because the election determines if there will be a referendum not the pre election agreement. With both this and Lucas's idea, there seems to be an element of suggesting something that they know is going to rejected but they are seen to be suggesting something. That said the immediate rejection by the Lib Dems then looks like as much game playing as the original suggestion. Despite appearances this is not a debate of Leave vs Remain but multiple different viewpoints in each side battling each other. We have the People's Front of Remain vs the Remain People's Front vs the People for Remain etc etc. The election of Johnson with the enticement of actually being in power  has given leave a more united people's front for Leave.

[Outrider]

I suspect the Lib Dem reluctance to countenance a unity government under Corbyn's leadership is that they have very vocally campaigned to revoke the submission of Article 50 and remain.  Corbyn, whilst of late coming out against a No Deal Brexit is still in favour of Brexit of some sort; given the Lib Dem recent history, I suspect they don't feel that they can go back on what they've said regarding supporting remain people and policies, even if they felt that Brexit was still inevitable and the only achievable goal was to ensure we didn't crash out on WTO terms.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect the Lib Dem reluctance to countenance a unity government under Corbyn's leadership is that they have very vocally campaigned to revoke the submission of Article 50 and remain.  Corbyn, whilst of late coming out against a No Deal Brexit is still in favour of Brexit of some sort; given the Lib Dem recent history, I suspect they don't feel that they can go back on what they've said regarding supporting remain people and policies, even if they felt that Brexit was still inevitable and the only achievable goal was to ensure we didn't crash out on WTO terms.

O.

That's the problem though - you can't get a united Remain approach and in insisting on any aspect of it, you automatically get rid of the chance to Remain. The numbers are not there in parliament to have a revocation of Article 50. The Labour party stood in the lection on a leave manifesto.

[Stranger]

I have to admit and agree with your intimation that this brexit is the most divisive political event of most of our lifetimes.

I didn't intimate that in my post - I asked you a question, which you ignored.     

[Gordon]

Interesting opinion piece in the Grauniad regarding Corbyn's recent approach.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/jeremy-corbyn-labour-brexit-second-referendum

[Outrider]

That's the problem though - you can't get a united Remain approach and in insisting on any aspect of it, you automatically get rid of the chance to Remain. The numbers are not there in parliament to have a revocation of Article 50. The Labour party stood in the lection on a leave manifesto.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It may be that there's the calculation that it's going to come down to a decision between remain or no deal leave, in which case they may feel there's a potential victory there.  I suspect, rather, having stood for remain they can't be seen to be changing their colours again after the Student Fees blowback, and will retain their policy integrity in the confidence that they weren't going to win anything anyway, but at least this way they've lost with integrity?

Supposition, either way, unless something gets leaked at some point.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps, perhaps not. It may be that there's the calculation that it's going to come down to a decision between remain or no deal leave, in which case they may feel there's a potential victory there.  I suspect, rather, having stood for remain they can't be seen to be changing their colours again after the Student Fees blowback, and will retain their policy integrity in the confidence that they weren't going to win anything anyway, but at least this way they've lost with integrity?

Supposition, either way, unless something gets leaked at some point.

O.

Losing with integrity is losing. No one is coming out of this with a purity pass. I'm not arguing that the LDs are particularly in the wrong here but there really isn't much point in saying you'll do anything to stop no deal Brexit and then saying you won't do that. It's all a bit Meat Loaf.