BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

It is like most people here can't read.

Whatever.

We agree.

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's that kind of criticism Goo that leads them to report in the way they do.

The focus on "bias" over factual content is the main issue. It becomes a "he said she said" summary of Westminster. They are too scared to lead with objective takes on it for fear of that criticism, so they just repeat what was said and occasionally ask people "what do you say to that?".

It's corroding democracy.

Rick, you hit the nail on the head. The corrosion of democracy is the reason the UK should leave, which will hopefully precipitate the EUs collapse. Then it can reform into just a trading block, which the country voted to join back in 73. And not the federal state that it's evolving into.

mr_goo

HaydenM wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The press is forced to give "balance" to each side, but there's only one side that had facts. A bit like when Russia shot down the passenger plane in Ukraine. They did, but Russian gov't said they didn't, so press was obliged to report the "other side". There wasn't one, only a lie.

The BBC has been about the most unbalanced of any press/news organisation. They have been always been a proponent of the EU and naturally they are most likely to be in the loop with the Remain campaign and the Scaremongers of Doom, Cameron and Osborne.

The BBC said something you disagree with so they must surely be biased. In fact, they are probably sitting right now in the secret meeting hall of the Remain campaign drinking blood and plotting some more biased reporting

Gosh. What a cogent, well thought, intelligent response. You must be an absolute delight to be acquainted with.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's that kind of criticism Goo that leads them to report in the way they do.

The focus on "bias" over factual content is the main issue. It becomes a "he said she said" summary of Westminster. They are too scared to lead with objective takes on it for fear of that criticism, so they just repeat what was said and occasionally ask people "what do you say to that?".

It's corroding democracy.

Rick, you hit the nail on the head. The corrosion of democracy is the reason the UK should leave, which will hopefully precipitate the EUs collapse. Then it can reform into just a trading block, which the country voted to join back in 73. And not the federal state that it's evolving into.

i asked what laws the EU has forced on us.... anyone ???

if there really is an erosion in democracy it is because the public cant be bothered to vote and those in powers dont listen to them when they do ie fracking decision in Yorkshire

i really do not see how the EU is responsible for this, as for the collapse of the EU, be careful for what you wish you.

i do agree that the BBC appears to be bias towards IN, but tbh the OUTs are not presenting compelling evidence to leave, where as there is a vast body of opinion from the BOE to the IMF that the UK economy will suffer to varying degrees if we leave and the BBC report that.

haydenm

Mr Goo wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The press is forced to give "balance" to each side, but there's only one side that had facts. A bit like when Russia shot down the passenger plane in Ukraine. They did, but Russian gov't said they didn't, so press was obliged to report the "other side". There wasn't one, only a lie.

The BBC has been about the most unbalanced of any press/news organisation. They have been always been a proponent of the EU and naturally they are most likely to be in the loop with the Remain campaign and the Scaremongers of Doom, Cameron and Osborne.

The BBC said something you disagree with so they must surely be biased. In fact, they are probably sitting right now in the secret meeting hall of the Remain campaign drinking blood and plotting some more biased reporting

Gosh. What a cogent, well thought, intelligent response. You must be an absolute delight to be acquainted with.

Gosh, what a sanctimonious, intelligent response. You must be an absolute delight to be acquainted with.

Sorry, I didn't realise this was a U.N. summit and I'm not allowed to make slightly tongue in cheek comments about things which are clearly wrong. Whatever you're view of the BBC, "The BBC has been about the most unbalanced of any press/news organisation" is frankly absurd. I don't remember them running with the headline 'The Queen backs Brexit', do you? If people on both sides think they are biased then they probably aren't...

bigmat

Went to a Brexit debate last night with prominent speakers from the left and right of the political spectrum. Interestingly, both speakers were firmly in the Remain camp. The unspoken view appeared to be that those who want out are either ill-informed or swivel eyed loons. I am yet to see a coherent argument in favour of leaving and the leave campaign hasn't been able to articulate what will actually happen if we do leave, so it is inevitable that there will be massive uncertainty and the predictable impact on the markets and destabilisation of an already teetering economy.

DeVlaeminck

Well if we stay in what will happen ? You've admitted the economy is teetering, we know social mobility is reducing, there is an ongoing process to expand the EU and none of the candidates will be net contributors but all will likely be net exporters of population, there will be continued alienation of the population from democracy as power is ceded to an organisation other than the one most of the population see as responsible for running the country, Russia will continue to be provoked by the prospect of the EU edging ever closer to its borders.

There are plenty of countries outside the EU that are successful and plenty inside that are economic basket cases - you say you've not seen a cogent argument for leaving but all I've seen are unsubstantiated scare stories for staying in.

mr_goo

HaydenM wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The press is forced to give "balance" to each side, but there's only one side that had facts. A bit like when Russia shot down the passenger plane in Ukraine. They did, but Russian gov't said they didn't, so press was obliged to report the "other side". There wasn't one, only a lie.

The BBC has been about the most unbalanced of any press/news organisation. They have been always been a proponent of the EU and naturally they are most likely to be in the loop with the Remain campaign and the Scaremongers of Doom, Cameron and Osborne.

The BBC said something you disagree with so they must surely be biased. In fact, they are probably sitting right now in the secret meeting hall of the Remain campaign drinking blood and plotting some more biased reporting

Gosh. What a cogent, well thought, intelligent response. You must be an absolute delight to be acquainted with.

Gosh, what a sanctimonious, intelligent response. You must be an absolute delight to be acquainted with.

Sorry, I didn't realise this was a U.N. summit and I'm not allowed to make slightly tongue in cheek comments about things which are clearly wrong. Whatever you're view of the BBC, "The BBC has been about the most unbalanced of any press/news organisation" is frankly absurd. I don't remember them running with the headline 'The Queen backs Brexit', do you? If people on both sides think they are biased then they probably aren't...

Try to think of an original riposte sir. It makes for much more interesting dialogue.
Anyhow for your information:

http://news-watch.co.uk/category/bbc-bias/

http://news-watch.co.uk/blog-2/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/who-will-watch-for-bbc-bias-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12175189/EU-referendum-BBC-is-already-failing-its-impartiality-test-claims-Tory-MP-Andrew-Bridgen.html

There are other links to The Sun, Mail and Express, but I have not added those as I believe you would merely dismiss them as originating from right wing, xenophobic publications.

briantrumpet

Mr Goo wrote:

http://news-watch.co.uk/category/bbc-bias/

http://news-watch.co.uk/blog-2/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/who-will-watch-for-bbc-bias-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12175189/EU-referendum-BBC-is-already-failing-its-impartiality-test-claims-Tory-MP-Andrew-Bridgen.html

Are you citing these as 'impartial observers of the news'?

mr_goo

briantrumpet wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

http://news-watch.co.uk/category/bbc-bias/

http://news-watch.co.uk/blog-2/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/who-will-watch-for-bbc-bias-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12175189/EU-referendum-BBC-is-already-failing-its-impartiality-test-claims-Tory-MP-Andrew-Bridgen.html

Are you citing these as 'impartial observers of the news'?

Nope. I'm citing them as observers of impartial reporting and coverage by the BBC. News Watch is not aligned to any side or political party. It is set up to monitor public service broadcasting.

briantrumpet

Mr Goo wrote:

Nope. I'm citing them as observers of impartial reporting and coverage by the BBC. News Watch is not aligned to any side or political party. It is set up to monitor public service broadcasting.

"In 2013 Newswatch is still functioning. In 2013, according to filings at the Charity Commission it was given £40,000 by the conservative foundation the Institute for Policy Research."

"Newswatch's predecessor Minotaur Media Tracking produced a number of reports for the Eurosceptic think-tank Global Britain and the Centre for Policy Studies. The great majority of these reports alleged a bias in favour of EU integration in the UK media (particularly the BBC) and several alleged a broader bias against right-wing politics and the Conservative Party."

Yes, clearly not aligned at all.

briantrumpet

David Keighley, of Newswatch... he does seem to be just a little obsessed:

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/auth ... -keighley/

briantrumpet

Mr Goo wrote:

Nope. I'm citing them as observers of impartial reporting and coverage by the BBC. News Watch is not aligned to any side or political party. It is set up to monitor public service broadcasting.

I must say "thank you" for the entertainment afforded by your prompt and my subsequent looking up of David Keighley's writings on Conservative Woman. Calling him a "monitor of public service broadcasting" is like calling Jimmy Savile a monitor of young girls' wellbeing.

rick_chasey

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biasM

We all suffer from it.

Some more than others.

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biasM

We all suffer from it.

Some more than others.

Yeh. You do.

rick_chasey

Ok so here's a question.

When the BBC reports on the Brexit campaign and their "£350m to Brussels" campaign, is it biased to say that that stat is wrong because it omits the money received as part of the rebate & other EU programs?

In the same way is it biased if when reporting on the plane that got shot down in Ukraine by the Russians, the BBC tells us the Russian gov't is lying when they deny it? I'd argue if there is anything as biased, it is when they give the "other side" to a cut and dry issue.

Pross

The latest tactic on social media appears to be 'we didn't fight two world wars to be ruled by Europe'. I've asked a few people to explain how we are being ruled by them, those that manage an answer say 'by introducing stupid new laws' but no-one has managed to cite an example of one of these laws yet.

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok so here's a question.

When the BBC reports on the Brexit campaign and their "£350m to Brussels" campaign, is it biased to say that that stat is wrong because it omits the money received as part of the rebate & other EU programs?

In the same way is it biased if when reporting on the plane that got shot down in Ukraine by the Russians, the BBC tells us the Russian gov't is lying when they deny it? I'd argue if there is anything as biased, it is when they give the "other side" to a cut and dry issue.

Would have been more respectful to choose a less sensitive comparison Rick.

I think that this thread has descended into quite an acerbic discussion whereby the pro EU among the forumites are shouting down those with a contrary opinion and being quite insulting. I hold my hand up that I fell into the trap with Hayden M ( I apologise sir).

FFS Rick you're the moderator, do your job. Others have left this forum because the discussions got out of hand and very personal and insulting.

mamba80

Pross wrote:

The latest tactic on social media appears to be 'we didn't fight two world wars to be ruled by Europe'. I've asked a few people to explain how we are being ruled by them, those that manage an answer say 'by introducing stupid new laws' but no-one has managed to cite an example of one of these laws yet.

asked the same a page or so ago.... inundated with responses :shock:


no Country wants to be ruled by Brussels or anyone else, Germany, France Spain etc, they all make their own laws and want to continue to do so.

bompington

Mr Goo wrote:

I think that this thread has descended into quite an acerbic discussion whereby the pro EU among the forumites are shouting down those with a contrary opinion and being quite insulting.

Having someone point out to you that you're talking nonsense is not the same thing as being "personal and insulting".

What about your masterly response to Rick on the subject of confirmation bias? Isn't that just the 8 year old's "no, you're a poo"?

briantrumpet

If people want to keep on topic and not get personal, ad hominem remarks aren't a good way to proceed.

Gosh. What a cogent, well thought, intelligent response. You must be an absolute delight to be acquainted with.

I'd agree, this is "quite insulting". Should the mods do something about it?

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

Pross wrote:

The latest tactic on social media appears to be 'we didn't fight two world wars to be ruled by Europe'. I've asked a few people to explain how we are being ruled by them, those that manage an answer say 'by introducing stupid new laws' but no-one has managed to cite an example of one of these laws yet.

asked the same a page or so ago.... inundated with responses :shock:


no Country wants to be ruled by Brussels or anyone else, Germany, France Spain etc, they all make their own laws and want to continue to do so.

A possible source?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... by-EU.html

verylonglegs

It's not the number of laws influenced by the EU but what impact they actually have. Like mamba says I challenged an out voter at work who used the 'ruled by Brussels' line to name 3 laws from the EU that have a significant detrimental impact on his daily life. A bit of goldfish mouth and stuttering ensued so I said fair enough, how about just one then. He couldn't come up with that. Genuinely baffled how you can have an opinion or a stance on a subject but then not actually be able to say how you came to have it. Do people have thinking skills anymore?

Pross

verylonglegs wrote:

It's not the number of laws influenced by the EU but what impact they actually have. Like mamba says I challenged an out voter at work who used the 'ruled by Brussels' line to name 3 laws from the EU that have a significant detrimental impact on his daily life. A bit of goldfish mouth and stuttering ensued so I said fair enough, how about just one then. He couldn't come up with that. Genuinely baffled how you can have an opinion or a stance on a subject but then not actually be able to say how you came to have it. Do people have thinking skills anymore?

At risk of sounding like someone who can't think for themselves - this!

You see it all the time, people just regurgitating urban myths / propaganda sometimes because it reinforces their preconceived opinion but also because they can't be bothered to challenge or research what they've heard or read.

I'm not exactly pro EU but from looking at the exit arguments I just haven't seen enough to convince me the risk of a step into the unknown is worth taking. Even those leading the exit campaign admit there's likely to be a short term financial hit so they need to demonstrate to me how the long term benefits will make that worthwhile.

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

It's not the number of laws influenced by the EU but what impact they actually have. Like mamba says I challenged an out voter at work who used the 'ruled by Brussels' line to name 3 laws from the EU that have a significant detrimental impact on his daily life. A bit of goldfish mouth and stuttering ensued so I said fair enough, how about just one then. He couldn't come up with that. Genuinely baffled how you can have an opinion or a stance on a subject but then not actually be able to say how you came to have it. Do people have thinking skills anymore?

At risk of sounding like someone who can't think for themselves - this!

You see it all the time, people just regurgitating urban myths / propaganda sometimes because it reinforces their preconceived opinion but also because they can't be bothered to challenge or research what they've heard or read.

I'm not exactly pro EU but from looking at the exit arguments I just haven't seen enough to convince me the risk of a step into the unknown is worth taking. Even those leading the exit campaign admit there's likely to be a short term financial hit so they need to demonstrate to me how the long term benefits will make that worthwhile.

Firstly you should check what they mean by short-term... as it reality it is several years.

I would genuinely have more respect for somebody who was voting out because they hated foreigners so much that they did not care about any other factors.

pblakeney

verylonglegs wrote:

It's not the number of laws influenced by the EU but what impact they actually have. Like mamba says I challenged an out voter at work who used the 'ruled by Brussels' line to name 3 laws from the EU that have a significant detrimental impact on his daily life. A bit of goldfish mouth and stuttering ensued so I said fair enough, how about just one then. He couldn't come up with that. Genuinely baffled how you can have an opinion or a stance on a subject but then not actually be able to say how you came to have it. Do people have thinking skills anymore?

So it is fair to say that 2/3 of new laws are EU influenced?
Therefore the arguement is what is the content of those 2/3rds?
It is a fair point to make but finding out the origins of new laws is not that simple.
Anyone got some links to show Westminster or Brussels in origin?
The sources for that report above would be a start but reporters appear to like keeping their sources secret.
Not helpful for the public with enquiring minds.

mrfpb

PBlakeney wrote:

So it is fair to say that 2/3 of new laws are EU influenced?
Therefore the arguement is what is the content of those 2/3rds?

Most of the "automatic" or "stealth" laws are regulations that go onto our statute books without discussion in the UK parliament. These generally relate to the regulation of the single market, which requires equal standards across the 28 states in order to function. This way of doing things was pushed forward by Mrs T. in the 80's when she was pursuing her European dream of unfettered capitalism and signed the Single European Act. The idea that every regulation would be debated in every parliament or scrutinised by every civil service was seen as a bureaucratic nightmare that would stop free trade.

Mrs T realised later that ceding powers over regulation in this way diminished national sovereignty and she became more anti-Europe in her approach, although in reality it fitted in with her original vision for Britain of shrinking the state and letting the market have more control. However the EC, as it was then, still had a large number of bodies (well, maybe just France) that were committed to the big State.

Personally I'm an Out voter as I think that sovereignty expressed through democracy is more important than the economic benefits we get from being ruled by a cabal of unelected commissioners who get their laws scrutinised, but rarely changed by an elected parliament that does not have the powers worthy of the name.

It's clear from Cameron's negotiation that we don't have enough sway in Europe to roll back or undo any existing treaty and can only stand still while the rest go ahead with further integration. Either we join wholeheartedly with the European project or leave and seek an alternative relationship.

The main reason that the Leave camp can't put forward a clear vision for the future is that there are so many possibilities. The people responsible for negotiating our departure (if we vote to leave) are the UK government, who clearly aren't going to put forward any plan based on them losing the vote.

bobmcstuff

mrfpb wrote:

The idea that every regulation would be debated in every parliament or scrutinised by every civil service was seen as a bureaucratic nightmare that would stop free trade.

This is slightly misleading as it isn't solely related to EU legislation, many regulatory bodies within the UK have the power to pass new, legally binding regulations in the same way.

E.g., the HSE is enabled under the Health and Safety at Work Act (which was discussed in parliament) to create subsidiary regulations as required to regulate health and safety at work in the UK. DECC etc. have similar powers (although I believe there are a number of Acts which empower DECC to regulate the various areas they are now responsible for).

I presume that there is an Act that has been passed by the UK parliament which gives the EU similar jurisdiction.

Additionally many EU regulations are enacted by Directives which are transposed/interpreted by individual governments, and there is actually a fair amount of wriggle room in the interpretation (although the EU can challenge the country's interpretation and do do so from time to time).

Basically my point is we are subject to plenty of legislation that has been put in place by civil servants who aren't directly elected, it's not just from the EU.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

So it is fair to say that 2/3 of new laws are EU influenced?
Therefore the arguement is what is the content of those 2/3rds?

Most of the "automatic" or "stealth" laws are regulations that go onto our statute books without discussion in the UK parliament. These generally relate to the regulation of the single market, which requires equal standards across the 28 states in order to function. This way of doing things was pushed forward by Mrs T. in the 80's when she was pursuing her European dream of unfettered capitalism and signed the Single European Act. The idea that every regulation would be debated in every parliament or scrutinised by every civil service was seen as a bureaucratic nightmare that would stop free trade.

Mrs T realised later that ceding powers over regulation in this way diminished national sovereignty and she became more anti-Europe in her approach, although in reality it fitted in with her original vision for Britain of shrinking the state and letting the market have more control. However the EC, as it was then, still had a large number of bodies (well, maybe just France) that were committed to the big State.

Personally I'm an Out voter as I think that sovereignty expressed through democracy is more important than the economic benefits we get from being ruled by a cabal of unelected commissioners who get their laws scrutinised, but rarely changed by an elected parliament that does not have the powers worthy of the name.

It's clear from Cameron's negotiation that we don't have enough sway in Europe to roll back or undo any existing treaty and can only stand still while the rest go ahead with further integration. Either we join wholeheartedly with the European project or leave and seek an alternative relationship.

The main reason that the Leave camp can't put forward a clear vision for the future is that there are so many possibilities. The people responsible for negotiating our departure (if we vote to leave) are the UK government, who clearly aren't going to put forward any plan based on them losing the vote.

That is the most coherent argument I have seen for voting Out.

Why do you see the EU system of govt as being so inferior to our own with an undemocratic parliament brought about by our ludicrous voting system. Most MPs are 3rd rate charlatans and are overseen by an unelected upper house and a hereditary monarch.

If we have an Out vote Cameron and Osborne will be out on their ears and the new Govt will be led by Brexiteers so yes they should have a plan for negotiating our departure.

I see economic prosperity as the key to everything so could never place it 2nd on a list of priorities.

rick_chasey

Thing is, UK, like any nation, has veto over anything serious.

Often the things that are so chastised in the EU were led by the UK.

And, for the last time, we do vote for MEPs you know. It's your own fault if you decide to vote a bunch of UKIPers who refuse to do anything with their seat other than earn a healthy wage, eat in rather nice restaurants in Brussels and Strasbourg and insult other European leaders.