Brexit - the next steps

[ippy]

The Lord Pearson that is a member of UKIP.

Obviously entirely unbiased in anyway. Ever. Whatsoever.

Yes Lord Pearson's for U K I P, yes  that would be the same man and just as the BBC and the Guardian are the remainers main source of support and information, I'm willing to admit, that doesn't automatically make the BBC or the Guardian wrong every time they convey some information about Brexit, so you must know where I'm going by now, just because Lord Pearson is a supporter of leaving the EU, you on the contrary seem to be unable to admit that, it doesn't automatically make Lord Pearson, an anti EU Peer, wrong every time he says anything about Brexit.

Regards, ippy
 
Lord Pearson's referred to the following points in the House of Lords around September October, time last year 2019, I may be a month or so out on this, he also named the professional survey firm he used to supply this appraisal, I can't quiet remember the name of this firm for the moment but however I wrote down the following from his speech in the House.

BBC interviewees since the referendum, out of 4275 guests 132 were supporters of the withdrawal from the EU or in fact amounted to 3.2% of this guest list.

They're such an exemplary lot there at the BBC
 .

ippy
 

[Udayana]

There is evidence that the BBC has been biased on EEC/EU issues over the years.

This document makes interesting reading:   

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/brusselsbroadcastingcorporation.pdf

It was written by the people that run news-watch (from whom the statistics it relies on were sourced) and includes the figures that Ippy quotes, out of context, above:

" Of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on the Today
programme between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2
per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal
from the EU. "
 
News-watch: http://news-watch.co.uk/about-us/

May I suggest that the BBC discussion be split from the Huawei thread as they are two different issues that could do with separate discussions?

[ippy]

There is evidence that the BBC has been biased on EEC/EU issues over the years.

This document makes interesting reading:   

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/brusselsbroadcastingcorporation.pdf

It was written by the people that run news-watch (from whom the statistics it relies on were sourced) and includes the figures that Ippy quotes, out of context, above:

" Of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on the Today
programme between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2
per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal
from the EU. "
 
News-watch: http://news-watch.co.uk/about-us/

May I suggest that the BBC discussion be split from the Huawei thread as they are two different issues that could do with separate discussions?

The figures I quoted were as stated by Lord Pearson in the House of Lords, as an individual wasn't trying to mislead in any way.

ippy.

[Aruntraveller]

Hmmmm.....Civitas.

From wiki:

The think tank describes itself as "classical liberal" and "non-partisan". However The Times and The Daily Telegraph have described it as a "right-of-centre think-tank".[3][4] Its director David G. Green writes occasionally in The Daily Telegraph and its deputy director Anastasia de Waal frequently contributes to The Guardian's "Comment is free" section.[5]

The Times has described Civitas as an ally of former Education Secretary Michael Gove.[3] It is opposed to green regulations, to legislation designed to reduce climate change, and to greater reliance on renewable energy.[6][7][8]

No agenda there then 

[Aruntraveller]

And, of course, we can all find figures to support our pov:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigel-farage-set-record-question-time-appearances-century-155615416.html

So why is the BBC so pro-brexit?

[jeremyp]

The fact that the EU court used to be able to over rule our courts was enough on it's own for me to say goodbye to the EU, not that that's all I found unacceptable about the EU, but hay we've escaped all of that, I can't help it you're not that keen on the result, we did, both of us had a vote.

ippy.

Can you name any examples of the EU courts (of which the UK was part on Friday) overruling our own courts in a bad way?

[Stranger]

The fact that the EU court used to be able to over rule our courts was enough on it's own for me to say goodbye to the EU...

Why can't you ever provide any rational reason why that was a bad idea? You seem to be suffering just as much from blind faith as the theists you so often criticise...

[Udayana]

The figures I quoted were as stated by Lord Pearson in the House of Lords, as an individual wasn't trying to mislead in any way.

ippy.

If Pearson gave the figures as interviewees since the referendum then he was just wrong.

[Udayana]

Hmmmm.....Civitas.

From wiki:

No agenda there then 

Of-course they have an agenda, as does News-watch which seems to be set up to prove that the BBC shows bias on certain issues. And the BBC itself has an agenda.

And, of-course, the idea that you can demonstrate bias just by counting statements for or against on a topic is wrong.  It's a complex issue that needs an in-depth discussion. Without one, I suspect the BBC will be trashed as HH suggested.

[ProfessorDavey]

" Of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on the Today
programme between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2
per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal
from the EU. "

And what proportion of news items about NATO during that period involved guests in support of the UK leaving NATO?

And come to that how many guests talking about the Rugby 6 Nations are supporters of England withdrawing from the tournament?

[Udayana]

And what proportion of news items about NATO during that period involved guests in support of the UK leaving NATO?

And come to that how many guests talking about the Rugby 6 Nations are supporters of England withdrawing from the tournament?

I was trying to make the context of Pearson's figures clearer.

There are people collecting evidence on that basis - that numbers of guests or statements for or against on an issue indicate "bias".

Separately, the latest attack is by Andrew Neil, a journalist broadcast by the BBC, criticizing the BBC for being anti-British for broadcasting a satirical song!

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/01/andrew-neil-attacks-bbc-over-anti-british-horrible-histories-song

[ProfessorDavey]

I was trying to make the context of Pearson's figures clearer.

There are people collecting evidence on that basis - that numbers of guests or statements for or against on an issue indicate "bias".

All I was doing was making it clear that the nature of the 'evidence' is non-sense in the context of alleged bias. Over the period 2005-2015 most of the news items linking to the EU would have nothing whatsoever to do with the UK's continued membership of the EU.

They might have been discussions about EU parliamentary elections, or EU response to climate change, or discussions about potential trade deals, or about response to the migrant crisis etc, etc. In that context the Brexit position of an interviewee would be entirely irrelevant. Indeed I suspect in most cases their position on the UK's membership of the EU would be entirely unknown.

[Gordon]

Of course the Tory party itself manipulates the 'message' - John Crace, the Guardian's political sketchwriter, has been banned from Boris the Liar's Brexit speech this morning.

From the Guardian Live/Twitter 'Day 3 in the Big Brexit Household. Number 10 refuses to allow some sketch writers to Boris Johnson event while letting in others. Oh Brave New World...

[SteveH]

A taste of things to come, perhaps.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/brexit-trade-talks-eu-to-back-spain-over-gibraltar-claims

Indeed - losing Gibraltar would be one in the eye for the little-Englanders who voted leave. I don't give a shit personally, but seeing them infuriated might be amusing.

[ippy]

Can you name any examples of the EU courts (of which the UK was part on Friday) overruling our own courts in a bad way?

Which part of the fact that the EU court had the ability to over rule our courts, what is it that you're not getting, the EU had the ability to over rule our topmost court.

They used to have that ability, they no longer can exercise that ability to over rule out topmost court

This is enough reason alone or on its own, however you wish to put it, it was enough reason for me to want to leave the EU, good bad or indifferent I found their ability to over rule our courts totally/entirely unacceptable as the referendum and the recent election underlined much the same thing, the EU can go join the Foreign Office as they have done, thank goodness.

ippy

[Udayana]

Which part of the fact that the EU court had the ability to over rule our courts, what is it that you're not getting, the EU had the ability to over rule our topmost court.
...

I feel sure this must have been discussed earlier, but it was not true that the "the EU court had the ability to over rule our courts".

The ECJ was responsible for ruling on EU law not national law.  It was not possible to appeal against the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, However, national courts could refer questions of EU law to the ECJ.

EU laws are the laws that all the EU member states have agreed should be applicable between the member states.

[wigginhall]

Never mind, what's a few lies over the EU?  Add them to the great pile in the right wing press, straight bananas, etc.

[Stranger]

This is enough reason alone or on its own, however you wish to put it, it was enough reason for me to want to leave the EU...

The fact that you can't or won't give any rational reason for this makes it appear to be irrational, bind, unthinking, xenophobic prejudice.

What exactly was wrong with EU-wide laws and a court to make judgements relating to them? What did they ever do that was in any way harmful to anybody?

[ippy]

The fact that you can't or won't give any rational reason for this makes it appear to be irrational, bind, unthinking, xenophobic prejudice.

What exactly was wrong with EU-wide laws and a court to make judgements relating to them? What did they ever do that was in any way harmful to anybody?

It doesn't matter what is said by a leaver, anything any EU leaver says on this forum with reference to the EU is only seen as yet another clay pigeon that remainers feel a need to shoot down immediately, not so much a me no understandie more a me no want to understandie!

I have never wanted to be a part of an ever closer union with the EU, even though my point of view on this appears to be so outrageous to most that write in to this forum, so outrageous that my wishing to leave point of view won the referendum and played a not so insignificant part in swinging the result of the recent election, how strange, this leave the EU idea appears to have won the day twice in the end?

By the way a special thanks to Jeremy for the massive and selfless contribution he made for the leaving side during the recent election.

There you are, there must be plenty there for you remainers to get on with for a while.

ippy
 

[Stranger]

It doesn't matter what is said by a leaver...

How the fuck would you know when you haven't even tried to give a rational justification? All you do is endlessly repeat how you don't like the EU and don't want closer union or the EU court. You're just like a theist endlessly repeating their blind faith position without ever offering a rational basis.

Leaving has already cost the country dearly and it's not likely to get better given what Boris the Lair is saying about the trade talks and you can't give us a single solitary reason except for your (apparent) blind, irrational prejudice.

[jeremyp]

Which part of the fact that the EU court had the ability to over rule our courts, what is it that you're not getting, the EU had the ability to over rule our topmost court.

Which part of “how is that bad?” Are you not getting?

This is enough reason alone or on its own,

It’s not a reason, it’s just a statement of fact. Are you against the UK Supreme Court simply because it can overrule decisions in your local county court?

[jeremyp]

It doesn't matter what is said by a leaver, anything any EU leaver says on this forum with reference to the EU is only seen as yet another clay pigeon that remainers feel a need to shoot down immediately, not so much a me no understandie more a me no want to understandie!

I have never wanted to be a part of an ever closer union with the EU, even though my point of view on this appears to be so outrageous to most that write in to this forum, so outrageous that my wishing to leave point of view won the referendum and played a not so insignificant part in swinging the result of the recent election, how strange, this leave the EU idea appears to have won the day twice in the end?

By the way a special thanks to Jeremy for the massive and selfless contribution he made for the leaving side during the recent election.

There you are, there must be plenty there for you remainers to get on with for a while.

ippy
 

I assume you mean Jeremy Corbyn not JeremyP. But you are right, his actions have done as much to get us into this mess as anybody else’s except David Cameron.

[Gordon]

To follow on from my earlier post (#5662) about John Crace being sidelined it looks like the journalists are sticking together. From Rowena Mason in the Guardian Politics Live blog.

Political journalists walked out of No 10 Downing Street this afternoon in protest at the government planning to give a briefing on the EU only to selected reporters – banning The Mirror, i, Huffington Post, PoliticsHome, Independent and others from attending.

Reporters on the invited list were asked to stand on one side of a rug in the foyer of No 10, while those not allowed in were asked by security to stand on the other side.

After one of Boris Johnson’s most senior advisers, Lee Cain, told the banned reporters they must leave the building, the rest of the journalists decided to walk out rather than allow Downing Street to choose who scrutinises and reports on the government.

Among those who refused the briefing and walked out included the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, ITV’s Robert Peston and political journalists from the Daily Mail, Telegraph, the Sun, Financial Times, and Guardian.

 

[Udayana]

To follow on from my earlier post (#5662) about John Crace being sidelined it looks like the journalists are sticking together. From Rowena Mason in the Guardian Politics Live blog.
...

Good - well done journos!

[Udayana]

...
What exactly was wrong with EU-wide laws and a court to make judgements relating to them? What did they ever do that was in any way harmful to anybody?

Well there were/are all sorts of things wrong with EU laws and the institutions and people, individuals and groups, have been harmed along the way.

I wouldn't want to trawl through and relive those as I feel, overall, they are not relevant to brexit. The 27 will be best served by the perseverance and gradual progressive reform of the EU constitution, laws and institutions - as the UK would have also been. 

However, even though we are leaving it does not mean that the UK is now somehow doomed.