Haven’t the government consistently said that we are leaving on March 2019? Do you think they are lying?
I can understand that maybe the terms of our exit aren’t to your liking but I don’t see how you can deny that, as a result of our vote to leave the EU, we are literally leaving the EU.
The quisling cowards on BBC's Marr Show have been scooped by Open Democracy. And I am honoured to say that I know one of the two journalists who have produced this. I hosted Jenna when she came to Prague to talk to journalists and students about the global FOI website movement.
Reading that Banks has clearly lied to the parliamentary committee as well as uttterly disrespecting it. My constitutional law studies were decades ago but I do remember that parliament has the power to hold Banks in "contempt" and fine or even jail him in that event.
No idea when this last happened, but with the performance of high profile witnesses like Green, Banks and his lap dog Wigmore maybe parliament should start holding these people to account?
I would imagine that Damian Collins is readying to do exactly that, but how many other MPs have shown his courage and integrity on this matter? Have we heard from the front bench of HM Opposition on this matter? Have we ****!
I'm sitting here, a BBC supporter, debating whether to boycott Marr on the basis that watching it implies complicity. A sad day to even have that debate with myself. In the end since I'm an Illicit viewer anyway,who watches via a satellite dish that cannot add to ratings, I guess I will watch, in the name of being informed about that on which I pontificate...
Let me ask you this Prague, if Corbyn was on Marr today, would you be having the same moral debate with yourself in view of the police investigation into anti semitism in his party?
It's completely different because Corbyn isn't being investigated and nor is the Labour Party. It is individuals within the party that are being investigated.
Rubbish. Corbyn is the boss and clearly turns a blind eye to this hate crime within his party.
Sorry fella but what point are you trying to make?
Your original question comparing Corbyn to Banks doesn't stand up because Corbyn isn't under investigation. Cressida Dick has herself confirmed that neither Corbyn nor the Labour Party are under investigation, therefore my response to you is not 'rubbish' as you so thoughtfully put it.
Sorry stig didn’t mean to come across as rude. I just thought prague’s comments were a bit rich considering the moral dilemma arises from him illegally watching a tv service the rest of us have to pay for.
For me I don’t agree with your comments about the comparison standing up. The police are investigation 45 incidents by Labour Party members of which Corbyn is the leader and has a list of anti semitism controversies as long as your arm.
Re Banks, the guy is innocent until proven guilty. He might be a spiv/smug/orrible bloke etc but all I’ve seen him do is out think remain. The Marr interview proved that these investigations should be left to the pros as Marr was woeful. If it does transpire that banks has done some illegal that affected the referendum result then I believe that the vote is invalid and needs to be reviewed. But the investigators better get a move on as they haven’t got much time left.
Oh. Is that what you mean? Nothing to do with Corbyn? OK so let's get some facts straight here.
1. I am not breaking any law. If you believe I am, recite the law being broken
2. The satellite dish, it's installation and service, has cost me the equivalent of about 7 years of the licence fee. It is so big and obtrusive that for years many of my neighbours whispered that I must be a British spy. Seriously. Do you not think I wouldn't rather pay for a digital subscription and have a normal unobtrusive 80cm dish?
3. I have actually tried to ask the BBC why it doesn't offer a digital sub to the probably million plus overseas viewers. The answer is "rights issues" but they can be solved, with a will. They just haven't done their homework.
Any other false allegations you wish to make about me this morning? I'm in the mood to take them on...
As I understand it from my mate that lives in Singapore, you can watch iPlayer if you are a uk licence payer. He still pays his uk licence so he can access it. Maybe this could be a way round it for you.
I don’t wish to levy any accusations on you but you even said yourself you’re an illicit viewer of BBC. I am going to look into the legality of what you are doing are see what other advice I can give you.
Just a heads up, when we leave the EU, the EU have confirmed that brits won’t be able to watch iPlayer or Netflix in the EU as it will be a breach of copyright.
Brexit won the latest referendum, but the Belfast Agreement was also secured with a referendum. Let's acknowledge them both then.
Not in the UK it didn't !!
jesus, talking about making facts fit.
Have a 2nd Referendum......but have the Belfast one over here too....asking the UK population whether the GFA should take precedence over anything that we vote for.
I'll be on that march !!!
I think you will find that Northern Ireland is in the UK.
Then perhaps ALL of the UK should had been given a chance to vote on the GFA & not just 5% of the population, or was the conflict just confined to Ireland.......nope, I do recall parts of Birmingham, London & Brighton being blown up too.
conveniently forgotten about that have we.
I remember all the atrocities which is why I don't want a return. If you are aggravated that you didn't vote in that referendum you could contact your MP I suppose. However we have two referenda that have results that conflict with each other. The GFA one was before the EU one so holds precedent on a first come first served basis.
Well, there could be an election next year - there shouldn't be as it would not even be half term, but there could be. There can be another referendum.
The problem with a 2nd Referendum is what happens if the vote is to Remain.....have a tie break because its 1-1 ?? And why would you follow the verdict of this one.....you didnt for the first one.
Following your logic it is 1-1 at the moment, isn’t it? Or do you get to decide which referendums count based on your own logic?
The problem with a 2nd Referendum is what happens if the vote is to Remain.....have a tie break because its 1-1 ?? And why would you follow the verdict of this one.....you didnt for the first one.
Following your logic it is 1-1 at the moment, isn’t it? Or do you get to decide which referendums count based on your own logic?
Exactly, we had a referendum back when we joined what then became the European Union.
“BuT I dUn ReMeMbEr vOtiNg FoR A eUroPeAn UnIoN”
I don’t remember voting on the customs union, the Irish border and all the other issues we are facing to leave the European Union.
The 2016 referendum should never be over-turned. The result was clear and, although close, decisive. There can be no doubt which side won: the requirement was for a simple majority of votes cast. To be victorious in that referendum, a side simply had to attract more votes than the other side. "Leave" did this; of that, there is no doubt.
There was no requirement for a two-thirds majority or for a minimum level of turnout. There probably should have been; but there wasn't.
The result stands, because it is clear.
On that basis, we should leave the EU. But there are two caveats. First, we have a representative parliament, whose members (while not legally required to act in favour of the result) have a constitutional duty to do the right thing for the country, taking all things into consideration. And second, despite nearly two and a half years' work on the topic, there is still neither an agreed outcome, nor an outcome that is demonstrably not harmful to the public good. In other words, we still can't agree how to do it, and all of the options are bad.
The 2016 referendum delivered a clear mandate to parliament to get to work on leaving the EU. But Parliament has an over-riding obligation to ensure it takes decisions in the country's best interest. So there's a fundamental conflict.
The 2016 referendum campaign was marred by lies and accusations of law-breaking. We should follow, meticulously, the instructions given to Parliament by an informed electorate. But an irreversible decision taken by an ill-informed electorate persuaded by lies and obfuscation by corrupt campaigners is far from democratic.
The necessity for a better-informed debate, by parties abiding by the law is absolutely clear now. The result of this "informed referendum" should be accommodated as closely as possible by Parliament. And, while the losing side will continue to campaign for the decision to be reversed, in time, we will all know that the decision - whichever way it goes - would be both democratic and fair.
And what could be more British than deciding something fairly?
Main lies: Take back control of our border - we always had control. Turkey to join EU - never gonna happen. Sovereignty -already had it. £350 to NHS - Brexit will leave us poorer. Straight bananas - yes they really said it!
Take those lies out of the equation and there would have been no yes vote anyway.
Whatever the result of a 2nd referendum, I've seen nothing to suggest the losing side would accept it, no matter which side that was.
The fact that polls don't show any serious swings only highlights how divided the country has become!
I agree. Another referendum would probably be the blow which splits the country irrevocably.
I think we've seen that split already. You can see already that there is a huge rump of people who have nailed their colours to the mast and who will not now be swayed no matter how preposterous their positions.
The quisling cowards on BBC's Marr Show have been scooped by Open Democracy. And I am honoured to say that I know one of the two journalists who have produced this. I hosted Jenna when she came to Prague to talk to journalists and students about the global FOI website movement.
Reading that Banks has clearly lied to the parliamentary committee as well as uttterly disrespecting it. My constitutional law studies were decades ago but I do remember that parliament has the power to hold Banks in "contempt" and fine or even jail him in that event.
No idea when this last happened, but with the performance of high profile witnesses like Green, Banks and his lap dog Wigmore maybe parliament should start holding these people to account?
I would imagine that Damian Collins is readying to do exactly that, but how many other MPs have shown his courage and integrity on this matter? Have we heard from the front bench of HM Opposition on this matter? Have we ****!
I'm sitting here, a BBC supporter, debating whether to boycott Marr on the basis that watching it implies complicity. A sad day to even have that debate with myself. In the end since I'm an Illicit viewer anyway,who watches via a satellite dish that cannot add to ratings, I guess I will watch, in the name of being informed about that on which I pontificate...
Let me ask you this Prague, if Corbyn was on Marr today, would you be having the same moral debate with yourself in view of the police investigation into anti semitism in his party?
It's completely different because Corbyn isn't being investigated and nor is the Labour Party. It is individuals within the party that are being investigated.
Rubbish. Corbyn is the boss and clearly turns a blind eye to this hate crime within his party.
Sorry fella but what point are you trying to make?
Your original question comparing Corbyn to Banks doesn't stand up because Corbyn isn't under investigation. Cressida Dick has herself confirmed that neither Corbyn nor the Labour Party are under investigation, therefore my response to you is not 'rubbish' as you so thoughtfully put it.
Sorry stig didn’t mean to come across as rude. I just thought prague’s comments were a bit rich considering the moral dilemma arises from him illegally watching a tv service the rest of us have to pay for.
For me I don’t agree with your comments about the comparison standing up. The police are investigation 45 incidents by Labour Party members of which Corbyn is the leader and has a list of anti semitism controversies as long as your arm.
Re Banks, the guy is innocent until proven guilty. He might be a spiv/smug/orrible bloke etc but all I’ve seen him do is out think remain. The Marr interview proved that these investigations should be left to the pros as Marr was woeful. If it does transpire that banks has done some illegal that affected the referendum result then I believe that the vote is invalid and needs to be reviewed. But the investigators better get a move on as they haven’t got much time left.
Oh. Is that what you mean? Nothing to do with Corbyn? OK so let's get some facts straight here.
1. I am not breaking any law. If you believe I am, recite the law being broken
2. The satellite dish, it's installation and service, has cost me the equivalent of about 7 years of the licence fee. It is so big and obtrusive that for years many of my neighbours whispered that I must be a British spy. Seriously. Do you not think I wouldn't rather pay for a digital subscription and have a normal unobtrusive 80cm dish?
3. I have actually tried to ask the BBC why it doesn't offer a digital sub to the probably million plus overseas viewers. The answer is "rights issues" but they can be solved, with a will. They just haven't done their homework.
Any other false allegations you wish to make about me this morning? I'm in the mood to take them on...
As I understand it from my mate that lives in Singapore, you can watch iPlayer if you are a uk licence payer. He still pays his uk licence so he can access it. Maybe this could be a way round it for you.
I don’t wish to levy any accusations on you but you even said yourself you’re an illicit viewer of BBC. I am going to look into the legality of what you are doing are see what other advice I can give you.
Just a heads up, when we leave the EU, the EU have confirmed that brits won’t be able to watch iPlayer or Netflix in the EU as it will be a breach of copyright.
Brexit won the latest referendum, but the Belfast Agreement was also secured with a referendum. Let's acknowledge them both then.
Not in the UK it didn't !!
jesus, talking about making facts fit.
Have a 2nd Referendum......but have the Belfast one over here too....asking the UK population whether the GFA should take precedence over anything that we vote for.
I'll be on that march !!!
I think you will find that Northern Ireland is in the UK.
Then perhaps ALL of the UK should had been given a chance to vote on the GFA & not just 5% of the population, or was the conflict just confined to Ireland.......nope, I do recall parts of Birmingham, London & Brighton being blown up too.
conveniently forgotten about that have we.
You have conveniently forgotten about half a dozen of my posts, dismantling your preposterous, flawed and occasionally bullshit statements Golfie. One of which was in the last week, following a post where you admitted not knowing what you were talking about regarding Northern Ireland, but you went on to pontificate over it anyway. And here you are again...
Yes quite right. All leavers, who speak for 17m people, should be muzzled and Adonis, who remember has never been elected by anybody to anything, should be allowed to pontificate at will on the BBC about his 'peoples vote', which also has never been voted for by anybody except the Lib Dems-who got 7% of the vote at the General election last year.
I fear that if we had another referendum and Adonis lost again, his head would simply explode. The poor man needs all our sympathy. He simply cannot understand why he should not have his way.
Dare you actually tackle what Adonis said, or are you just going to make personal slights against him? It seems to me that he's bang on the money.
'The BBC is consistently manipulated by Brexiteers into providing them with false parity in arguments where their views add nothing, represent nobody and are demonstrably and factually wrong'
He says the Brexiters represent 'nobody', and you think that is bang on the money?
What Adonis is getting at there is that Arron Banks has never submitted himself to the electorate for representative duties (unlike Farage who has offered himself as an MP several times and been told to shove it). Why therefore should a private citizen be allowed to come on the Marr Show because he has been named as the subject of a criminal investigation, and have free reign to put up a defence before the NCA have even started work? Where is the public interest in that? Had Marr also "balanced" him by inviting, say, Carole Cadwalladr on, then it might have been acceptable - you know, like the Today programme gets Nigel Lawson on every time there is a new climate change discovery. But no, no balance this time. Just Banks being allowed to say "No Russian money" without Marr even suggesting there was - and then their Twitter feed highlighting him saying that!!
That show is the work of members of your 'liberal metropolitan elite' too, @Southbank.
Now I think you need to reread Adonis's article. He is not just talking about Banks, but how 'day after day' and 'consistently' , Brexiters appear on the BBC. Just because you disagree with Brexit does not mean you have the right to silence those arguing for it or deny them the right to take part in a national debate, especially given the huge numbers of people who back Brexit. I find Adonis's views on this very sinister. I hope you do not agree with him.
If the Remain case is so strong it should be able to win people over through the strength of its argument. It did not in 2016 and it still is not now. Wanting to silence Leave people is very disturbing and as I said outright sinister. It smacks of no-platforming in student politics, not grown up democracy.
It is curious that you put 'day after day' and 'consistently' in inverted commas as if you are quoting them and then add "Brexiters appear on the BBC" as if that is something that Adonis actually wrote. He didn't.
Let's actually look at his words. First the 'Day after day' bit: "Day after day BBC Radio’s flagship show – Today – descends into surrealist farce as John Humphrys seems to bark inanities at anyone presenting an evidenced argument against Brexit". Have you ever listened to this show, Southbank? I do regularly and I concur with Adonis 100%, it's embarrassing to hear a once respected journalist barking and sniping without any display of his once fine questioning and reasoning talents. It is adversarial radio at its very worst. As for 'consistently', it appears twice in the text, first "The BBC is consistently manipulated by Brexiteers into providing them with false parity in arguments...". It is; frequently there are no facts behind the pro-Brexit argument, just platitudes, and why would there be when "the people of this country have had enough of experts"? Perhaps worse, often times even the basic terminology used are not explained. 'Taking control', 'sovereignty', '£350m' - all terms that are never questioned and go completely unchallenged by Auntie Beeb. The other use of 'consistently: "the BBC has so consistently failed in its coverage of the campaign for a people’s vote". Again, very hard to argue against this, because the coverage has been paltry and Adonis very nicely juxtaposes this with the Farage fish stunt.
It looks like someone definitely needs to reread Adonis's article, but I don't think it's Prague.
It is Southbank's stock-in-trade. He really should be a tabloid hack, I actually admire his mastery of making false statements like they were fact. It is the kind of thing that "won" (see what I did there ) leave the referendum. Say it long enough and loud enough and sufficient daft people will believe you.
And in true tabloid tradition, once found out, he just ignores it and starts again with more falsehoods.
The quisling cowards on BBC's Marr Show have been scooped by Open Democracy. And I am honoured to say that I know one of the two journalists who have produced this. I hosted Jenna when she came to Prague to talk to journalists and students about the global FOI website movement.
Reading that Banks has clearly lied to the parliamentary committee as well as uttterly disrespecting it. My constitutional law studies were decades ago but I do remember that parliament has the power to hold Banks in "contempt" and fine or even jail him in that event.
No idea when this last happened, but with the performance of high profile witnesses like Green, Banks and his lap dog Wigmore maybe parliament should start holding these people to account?
I would imagine that Damian Collins is readying to do exactly that, but how many other MPs have shown his courage and integrity on this matter? Have we heard from the front bench of HM Opposition on this matter? Have we ****!
I'm sitting here, a BBC supporter, debating whether to boycott Marr on the basis that watching it implies complicity. A sad day to even have that debate with myself. In the end since I'm an Illicit viewer anyway,who watches via a satellite dish that cannot add to ratings, I guess I will watch, in the name of being informed about that on which I pontificate...
Let me ask you this Prague, if Corbyn was on Marr today, would you be having the same moral debate with yourself in view of the police investigation into anti semitism in his party?
It's completely different because Corbyn isn't being investigated and nor is the Labour Party. It is individuals within the party that are being investigated.
Rubbish. Corbyn is the boss and clearly turns a blind eye to this hate crime within his party.
Sorry fella but what point are you trying to make?
Your original question comparing Corbyn to Banks doesn't stand up because Corbyn isn't under investigation. Cressida Dick has herself confirmed that neither Corbyn nor the Labour Party are under investigation, therefore my response to you is not 'rubbish' as you so thoughtfully put it.
Sorry stig didn’t mean to come across as rude. I just thought prague’s comments were a bit rich considering the moral dilemma arises from him illegally watching a tv service the rest of us have to pay for.
For me I don’t agree with your comments about the comparison standing up. The police are investigation 45 incidents by Labour Party members of which Corbyn is the leader and has a list of anti semitism controversies as long as your arm.
Re Banks, the guy is innocent until proven guilty. He might be a spiv/smug/orrible bloke etc but all I’ve seen him do is out think remain. The Marr interview proved that these investigations should be left to the pros as Marr was woeful. If it does transpire that banks has done some illegal that affected the referendum result then I believe that the vote is invalid and needs to be reviewed. But the investigators better get a move on as they haven’t got much time left.
Oh. Is that what you mean? Nothing to do with Corbyn? OK so let's get some facts straight here.
1. I am not breaking any law. If you believe I am, recite the law being broken
2. The satellite dish, it's installation and service, has cost me the equivalent of about 7 years of the licence fee. It is so big and obtrusive that for years many of my neighbours whispered that I must be a British spy. Seriously. Do you not think I wouldn't rather pay for a digital subscription and have a normal unobtrusive 80cm dish?
3. I have actually tried to ask the BBC why it doesn't offer a digital sub to the probably million plus overseas viewers. The answer is "rights issues" but they can be solved, with a will. They just haven't done their homework.
Any other false allegations you wish to make about me this morning? I'm in the mood to take them on...
As I understand it from my mate that lives in Singapore, you can watch iPlayer if you are a uk licence payer. He still pays his uk licence so he can access it. Maybe this could be a way round it for you.
I don’t wish to levy any accusations on you but you even said yourself you’re an illicit viewer of BBC. I am going to look into the legality of what you are doing are see what other advice I can give you.
Just a heads up, when we leave the EU, the EU have confirmed that brits won’t be able to watch iPlayer or Netflix in the EU as it will be a breach of copyright.
Brexit won the latest referendum, but the Belfast Agreement was also secured with a referendum. Let's acknowledge them both then.
Not in the UK it didn't !!
jesus, talking about making facts fit.
Have a 2nd Referendum......but have the Belfast one over here too....asking the UK population whether the GFA should take precedence over anything that we vote for.
I'll be on that march !!!
I think you will find that Northern Ireland is in the UK.
Then perhaps ALL of the UK should had been given a chance to vote on the GFA & not just 5% of the population, or was the conflict just confined to Ireland.......nope, I do recall parts of Birmingham, London & Brighton being blown up too.
conveniently forgotten about that have we.
You have conveniently forgotten about half a dozen of my posts, dismantling your preposterous, flawed and occasionally bullshit statements Golfie. One of which was in the last week, following a post where you admitted not knowing what you were talking about regarding Northern Ireland, but you went on to pontificate over it anyway. And here you are again...
Yes quite right. All leavers, who speak for 17m people, should be muzzled and Adonis, who remember has never been elected by anybody to anything, should be allowed to pontificate at will on the BBC about his 'peoples vote', which also has never been voted for by anybody except the Lib Dems-who got 7% of the vote at the General election last year.
I fear that if we had another referendum and Adonis lost again, his head would simply explode. The poor man needs all our sympathy. He simply cannot understand why he should not have his way.
Dare you actually tackle what Adonis said, or are you just going to make personal slights against him? It seems to me that he's bang on the money.
'The BBC is consistently manipulated by Brexiteers into providing them with false parity in arguments where their views add nothing, represent nobody and are demonstrably and factually wrong'
He says the Brexiters represent 'nobody', and you think that is bang on the money?
What Adonis is getting at there is that Arron Banks has never submitted himself to the electorate for representative duties (unlike Farage who has offered himself as an MP several times and been told to shove it). Why therefore should a private citizen be allowed to come on the Marr Show because he has been named as the subject of a criminal investigation, and have free reign to put up a defence before the NCA have even started work? Where is the public interest in that? Had Marr also "balanced" him by inviting, say, Carole Cadwalladr on, then it might have been acceptable - you know, like the Today programme gets Nigel Lawson on every time there is a new climate change discovery. But no, no balance this time. Just Banks being allowed to say "No Russian money" without Marr even suggesting there was - and then their Twitter feed highlighting him saying that!!
That show is the work of members of your 'liberal metropolitan elite' too, @Southbank.
Now I think you need to reread Adonis's article. He is not just talking about Banks, but how 'day after day' and 'consistently' , Brexiters appear on the BBC. Just because you disagree with Brexit does not mean you have the right to silence those arguing for it or deny them the right to take part in a national debate, especially given the huge numbers of people who back Brexit. I find Adonis's views on this very sinister. I hope you do not agree with him.
If the Remain case is so strong it should be able to win people over through the strength of its argument. It did not in 2016 and it still is not now. Wanting to silence Leave people is very disturbing and as I said outright sinister. It smacks of no-platforming in student politics, not grown up democracy.
It is curious that you put 'day after day' and 'consistently' in inverted commas as if you are quoting them and then add "Brexiters appear on the BBC" as if that is something that Adonis actually wrote. He didn't.
Let's actually look at his words. First the 'Day after day' bit: "Day after day BBC Radio’s flagship show – Today – descends into surrealist farce as John Humphrys seems to bark inanities at anyone presenting an evidenced argument against Brexit". Have you ever listened to this show, Southbank? I do regularly and I concur with Adonis 100%, it's embarrassing to hear a once respected journalist barking and sniping without any display of his once fine questioning and reasoning talents. It is adversarial radio at its very worst. As for 'consistently', it appears twice in the text, first "The BBC is consistently manipulated by Brexiteers into providing them with false parity in arguments...". It is; frequently there are no facts behind the pro-Brexit argument, just platitudes, and why would there be when "the people of this country have had enough of experts"? Perhaps worse, often times even the basic terminology used are not explained. 'Taking control', 'sovereignty', '£350m' - all terms that are never questioned and go completely unchallenged by Auntie Beeb. The other use of 'consistently: "the BBC has so consistently failed in its coverage of the campaign for a people’s vote". Again, very hard to argue against this, because the coverage has been paltry and Adonis very nicely juxtaposes this with the Farage fish stunt.
It looks like someone definitely needs to reread Adonis's article, but I don't think it's Prague.
It is Southbank's stock-in-trade. He really should be a tabloid hack, I actually admire his mastery of making false statements like they were fact. It is the kind of thing that "won" (see what I did there ) leave the referendum. Say it long enough and loud enough and sufficient daft people will believe you.
And in true tabloid tradition, once found out, he just ignores it and starts again with more falsehoods.
This is so true and it's not just Southbank. So often you see that their arguments have been countered, but they just can't admit it. Instead, they go quiet for an hour or two and then the old broken record starts up again as if nothing had happened.
The problem with a 2nd Referendum is what happens if the vote is to Remain.....have a tie break because its 1-1 ?? And why would you follow the verdict of this one.....you didnt for the first one.
Because following the verdict of this one does not involve inflicting untold damage to the UK, it’s institutions, it’s economy, it’s people and it’s standing in the world for generations to come. And it can no longer be dismissed as project fear. After 2 1/2 years of real world negotiations everyone can now clearly appreciate the insanity of trying to leave the EU.
The main lie that was told during the Referendum was that the Government would act on the result and Leave. What we have had instead is a Remainer Government doing everything it can to avoid leaving. Another referendum would not fix that problem.
@Southbank Which leavers do you believe the government should have been comprised of?
Haven’t the government consistently said that we are leaving on March 2019? Do you think they are lying?
I can understand that maybe the terms of our exit aren’t to your liking but I don’t see how you can deny that, as a result of our vote to leave the EU, we are literally leaving the EU.
Controlling our money, laws and borders will be the test, not membership under a different name.
Haven’t the government consistently said that we are leaving on March 2019? Do you think they are lying?
I can understand that maybe the terms of our exit aren’t to your liking but I don’t see how you can deny that, as a result of our vote to leave the EU, we are literally leaving the EU.
Controlling our money, laws and borders will be the test, not membership under a different name.
What part of border control are you most keen on that we dont already have ?
Yes quite right. All leavers, who speak for 17m people, should be muzzled and Adonis, who remember has never been elected by anybody to anything, should be allowed to pontificate at will on the BBC about his 'peoples vote', which also has never been voted for by anybody except the Lib Dems-who got 7% of the vote at the General election last year.
I fear that if we had another referendum and Adonis lost again, his head would simply explode. The poor man needs all our sympathy. He simply cannot understand why he should not have his way.
Dare you actually tackle what Adonis said, or are you just going to make personal slights against him? It seems to me that he's bang on the money.
'The BBC is consistently manipulated by Brexiteers into providing them with false parity in arguments where their views add nothing, represent nobody and are demonstrably and factually wrong'
He says the Brexiters represent 'nobody', and you think that is bang on the money?
What Adonis is getting at there is that Arron Banks has never submitted himself to the electorate for representative duties (unlike Farage who has offered himself as an MP several times and been told to shove it). Why therefore should a private citizen be allowed to come on the Marr Show because he has been named as the subject of a criminal investigation, and have free reign to put up a defence before the NCA have even started work? Where is the public interest in that? Had Marr also "balanced" him by inviting, say, Carole Cadwalladr on, then it might have been acceptable - you know, like the Today programme gets Nigel Lawson on every time there is a new climate change discovery. But no, no balance this time. Just Banks being allowed to say "No Russian money" without Marr even suggesting there was - and then their Twitter feed highlighting him saying that!!
That show is the work of members of your 'liberal metropolitan elite' too, @Southbank.
Now I think you need to reread Adonis's article. He is not just talking about Banks, but how 'day after day' and 'consistently' , Brexiters appear on the BBC. Just because you disagree with Brexit does not mean you have the right to silence those arguing for it or deny them the right to take part in a national debate, especially given the huge numbers of people who back Brexit. I find Adonis's views on this very sinister. I hope you do not agree with him.
If the Remain case is so strong it should be able to win people over through the strength of its argument. It did not in 2016 and it still is not now. Wanting to silence Leave people is very disturbing and as I said outright sinister. It smacks of no-platforming in student politics, not grown up democracy.
It is curious that you put 'day after day' and 'consistently' in inverted commas as if you are quoting them and then add "Brexiters appear on the BBC" as if that is something that Adonis actually wrote. He didn't.
Let's actually look at his words. First the 'Day after day' bit: "Day after day BBC Radio’s flagship show – Today – descends into surrealist farce as John Humphrys seems to bark inanities at anyone presenting an evidenced argument against Brexit". Have you ever listened to this show, Southbank? I do regularly and I concur with Adonis 100%, it's embarrassing to hear a once respected journalist barking and sniping without any display of his once fine questioning and reasoning talents. It is adversarial radio at its very worst. As for 'consistently', it appears twice in the text, first "The BBC is consistently manipulated by Brexiteers into providing them with false parity in arguments...". It is; frequently there are no facts behind the pro-Brexit argument, just platitudes, and why would there be when "the people of this country have had enough of experts"? Perhaps worse, often times even the basic terminology used are not explained. 'Taking control', 'sovereignty', '£350m' - all terms that are never questioned and go completely unchallenged by Auntie Beeb. The other use of 'consistently: "the BBC has so consistently failed in its coverage of the campaign for a people’s vote". Again, very hard to argue against this, because the coverage has been paltry and Adonis very nicely juxtaposes this with the Farage fish stunt.
It looks like someone definitely needs to reread Adonis's article, but I don't think it's Prague.
It is Southbank's stock-in-trade. He really should be a tabloid hack, I actually admire his mastery of making false statements like they were fact. It is the kind of thing that "won" (see what I did there ) leave the referendum. Say it long enough and loud enough and sufficient daft people will believe you.
And in true tabloid tradition, once found out, he just ignores it and starts again with more falsehoods.
I do listen to Today. Day after day there is a stream of people saying Brexit will be a disaster which is presented as fact, when it is really an opinion.The presenters consistently fail to challenge these assertions. But,unlike Adonis, I do not think they should be kept off the air.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Global migration will only ever increase, the only way to stop that would be to tackle climate change.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
The inflow of european migrants is driven by the state of the economy so we should probably hope not. Of course the biggest numbers of migrants are non EU anyway. They contribute far less on average to the economy than european migrants do.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Is the goal merely to reduce the inflow of migrants?
If so, we could do that at a stroke, by introducing and administering rules for non-EU migrants, who make up approximately half the UK's I flow of migrants. And we could do that without reference to the EU at all and without breaching or changing any international free trade agreements.
But that's not enough for some people desperately whipped up into a frenzy of fear about foreigners is it? We have to go further and end freedom of movement from citizens of countries far closer to the UK. And, in order to achieve that "goal", we have to rip up the biggest, most lucrative, wide-ranging and beneficial free trade deal we have ever been a participant in.
So, to reduce the inflow of migrants (whose presence increases, rather than decreases our GDP) we have to lose the benefits of our biggest free trade deal, lose the ability to work in 27 other countries, lose investment in infrastructure in the most needy parts of the UK, threaten Northern Ireland's position in the UK, risk the termination of the Belfast Agreement, see jobs in atomic energy and medicine lost, risk the profitability of our financial services industry, see our economy decline and have a far less clear economic outlook for the next generation or so.
Leaving the EU to reduce inward migration. Honestly? It's a solution we can't afford, delivered in a way we can't agree on, to a problem we don't understand that is believed to create an issue that doesn't exist.
And people think remainers should stop "banging on about it"?
Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
Yes. Let's stop being a member of a trading bloc because it only tempts us to loan money to other countries and negotiate terms that aren't in our best interest.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Is the goal merely to reduce the inflow of migrants?
If so, we could do that at a stroke, by introducing and administering rules for non-EU migrants, who make up approximately half the UK's I flow of migrants. And we could do that without reference to the EU at all and without breaching or changing any international free trade agreements.
But that's not enough for some people desperately whipped up into a frenzy of fear about foreigners is it? We have to go further and end freedom of movement from citizens of countries far closer to the UK. And, in order to achieve that "goal", we have to rip up the biggest, most lucrative, wide-ranging and beneficial free trade deal we have ever been a participant in.
So, to reduce the inflow of migrants (whose presence increases, rather than decreases our GDP) we have to lose the benefits of our biggest free trade deal, lose the ability to work in 27 other countries, lose investment in infrastructure in the most needy parts of the UK, threaten Northern Ireland's position in the UK, risk the termination of the Belfast Agreement, see jobs in atomic energy and medicine lost, risk the profitability of our financial services industry, see our economy decline and have a far less clear economic outlook for the next generation or so.
Leaving the EU to reduce inward migration. Honestly? It's a solution we can't afford, delivered in a way we can't agree on, to a problem we don't understand that is believed to create an issue that doesn't exist.
And people think remainers should stop "banging on about it"?
Yeah but apart from that. What has the eu ever done for us ?
Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
Ireland repaid ~45% of the entire EU debt, including your own. You're welcome.
Yes quite right. All leavers, who speak for 17m people, should be muzzled and Adonis, who remember has never been elected by anybody to anything, should be allowed to pontificate at will on the BBC about his 'peoples vote', which also has never been voted for by anybody except the Lib Dems-who got 7% of the vote at the General election last year.
I fear that if we had another referendum and Adonis lost again, his head would simply explode. The poor man needs all our sympathy. He simply cannot understand why he should not have his way.
Dare you actually tackle what Adonis said, or are you just going to make personal slights against him? It seems to me that he's bang on the money.
'The BBC is consistently manipulated by Brexiteers into providing them with false parity in arguments where their views add nothing, represent nobody and are demonstrably and factually wrong'
He says the Brexiters represent 'nobody', and you think that is bang on the money?
What Adonis is getting at there is that Arron Banks has never submitted himself to the electorate for representative duties (unlike Farage who has offered himself as an MP several times and been told to shove it). Why therefore should a private citizen be allowed to come on the Marr Show because he has been named as the subject of a criminal investigation, and have free reign to put up a defence before the NCA have even started work? Where is the public interest in that? Had Marr also "balanced" him by inviting, say, Carole Cadwalladr on, then it might have been acceptable - you know, like the Today programme gets Nigel Lawson on every time there is a new climate change discovery. But no, no balance this time. Just Banks being allowed to say "No Russian money" without Marr even suggesting there was - and then their Twitter feed highlighting him saying that!!
That show is the work of members of your 'liberal metropolitan elite' too, @Southbank.
Now I think you need to reread Adonis's article. He is not just talking about Banks, but how 'day after day' and 'consistently' , Brexiters appear on the BBC. Just because you disagree with Brexit does not mean you have the right to silence those arguing for it or deny them the right to take part in a national debate, especially given the huge numbers of people who back Brexit. I find Adonis's views on this very sinister. I hope you do not agree with him.
If the Remain case is so strong it should be able to win people over through the strength of its argument. It did not in 2016 and it still is not now. Wanting to silence Leave people is very disturbing and as I said outright sinister. It smacks of no-platforming in student politics, not grown up democracy.
It is curious that you put 'day after day' and 'consistently' in inverted commas as if you are quoting them and then add "Brexiters appear on the BBC" as if that is something that Adonis actually wrote. He didn't.
Let's actually look at his words. First the 'Day after day' bit: "Day after day BBC Radio’s flagship show – Today – descends into surrealist farce as John Humphrys seems to bark inanities at anyone presenting an evidenced argument against Brexit". Have you ever listened to this show, Southbank? I do regularly and I concur with Adonis 100%, it's embarrassing to hear a once respected journalist barking and sniping without any display of his once fine questioning and reasoning talents. It is adversarial radio at its very worst. As for 'consistently', it appears twice in the text, first "The BBC is consistently manipulated by Brexiteers into providing them with false parity in arguments...". It is; frequently there are no facts behind the pro-Brexit argument, just platitudes, and why would there be when "the people of this country have had enough of experts"? Perhaps worse, often times even the basic terminology used are not explained. 'Taking control', 'sovereignty', '£350m' - all terms that are never questioned and go completely unchallenged by Auntie Beeb. The other use of 'consistently: "the BBC has so consistently failed in its coverage of the campaign for a people’s vote". Again, very hard to argue against this, because the coverage has been paltry and Adonis very nicely juxtaposes this with the Farage fish stunt.
It looks like someone definitely needs to reread Adonis's article, but I don't think it's Prague.
It is Southbank's stock-in-trade. He really should be a tabloid hack, I actually admire his mastery of making false statements like they were fact. It is the kind of thing that "won" (see what I did there ) leave the referendum. Say it long enough and loud enough and sufficient daft people will believe you.
And in true tabloid tradition, once found out, he just ignores it and starts again with more falsehoods.
This is so true and it's not just Southbank. So often you see that their arguments have been countered, but they just can't admit it. Instead, they go quiet for an hour or two and then the old broken record starts up again as if nothing had happened.
Beautifully illustrated by Golfie's "...flow of immigrants..." post, despite being told dozens of times what a load of cobblers it is, with facts to back it up, and now Chizz again takes it apart. He'll be back in a couple of days with the same old rubbish. I cannot understand why they are not embarrassed by looking so daft in public over and over?
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
exactly, the entire reason the tories havent reduced migration significantly is because that will remove the economy's life support. Their need to look economically competent (at least was) more important than reducing migration
I understand your caution about polling data in the light of recent failures both re the referendum and the US presidency. It's wise to be cautious, however I can assure you that the main research agencies were more aghast than the punters, and have worked hard to remedy where they went wrong. In the most recent U.K. GE, one agency, I think it was ComRes, used a different methodology which correctly picked up the trend to Labour. The others took notice even if professional rivalry means they will never admit it openly.
When it comes to Brexit, I think the most reliable barometer is a "tracker", a poll that asks the same sample the same question over time. The absolute figure is less important than the trend. The biggest of its kind, from YouGov, shows a clear trend towards more people favouring Remain but up to now I don't think it showed as wide a gap as 54:46. So Channel 4 may be an outlier. Or it could be the very latest indicator that the will of the people is slowly but steadily shifting. A 20k sample is not to be sniffed at.
An interesting test of the pollsters will come tonight from,the US. I am not sure if it's right to assume the problems of pollsters in the US are the same as in the U.K., nevertheless, if the Democrats fail to win enough seats to take Congress, the pollsters still have a problem. However if they do, it suggests the pollsters have got to grips with the political changes, which require a new approach to the sample balance.
I think the net value of EU migrants has been calculated at about 2p in the pound in income tax. That is after services, schools, hospitals etc... is taken into account.
Comments
Haven’t the government consistently said that we are leaving on March 2019? Do you think they are lying?
I can understand that maybe the terms of our exit aren’t to your liking but I don’t see how you can deny that, as a result of our vote to leave the EU, we are literally leaving the EU.
However we have two referenda that have results that conflict with each other. The GFA one was before the EU one so holds precedent on a first come first served basis.
“BuT I dUn ReMeMbEr vOtiNg FoR A eUroPeAn UnIoN”
I don’t remember voting on the customs union, the Irish border and all the other issues we are facing to leave the European Union.
What are you so scared of?
There was no requirement for a two-thirds majority or for a minimum level of turnout. There probably should have been; but there wasn't.
The result stands, because it is clear.
On that basis, we should leave the EU. But there are two caveats. First, we have a representative parliament, whose members (while not legally required to act in favour of the result) have a constitutional duty to do the right thing for the country, taking all things into consideration. And second, despite nearly two and a half years' work on the topic, there is still neither an agreed outcome, nor an outcome that is demonstrably not harmful to the public good. In other words, we still can't agree how to do it, and all of the options are bad.
The 2016 referendum delivered a clear mandate to parliament to get to work on leaving the EU. But Parliament has an over-riding obligation to ensure it takes decisions in the country's best interest. So there's a fundamental conflict.
The 2016 referendum campaign was marred by lies and accusations of law-breaking. We should follow, meticulously, the instructions given to Parliament by an informed electorate. But an irreversible decision taken by an ill-informed electorate persuaded by lies and obfuscation by corrupt campaigners is far from democratic.
The necessity for a better-informed debate, by parties abiding by the law is absolutely clear now. The result of this "informed referendum" should be accommodated as closely as possible by Parliament. And, while the losing side will continue to campaign for the decision to be reversed, in time, we will all know that the decision - whichever way it goes - would be both democratic and fair.
And what could be more British than deciding something fairly?
Take back control of our border - we always had control.
Turkey to join EU - never gonna happen.
Sovereignty -already had it.
£350 to NHS - Brexit will leave us poorer.
Straight bananas - yes they really said it!
Take those lies out of the equation and there would have been no yes vote anyway.
And in true tabloid tradition, once found out, he just ignores it and starts again with more falsehoods.
But,unlike Adonis, I do not think they should be kept off the air.
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
If so, we could do that at a stroke, by introducing and administering rules for non-EU migrants, who make up approximately half the UK's I flow of migrants. And we could do that without reference to the EU at all and without breaching or changing any international free trade agreements.
But that's not enough for some people desperately whipped up into a frenzy of fear about foreigners is it? We have to go further and end freedom of movement from citizens of countries far closer to the UK. And, in order to achieve that "goal", we have to rip up the biggest, most lucrative, wide-ranging and beneficial free trade deal we have ever been a participant in.
So, to reduce the inflow of migrants (whose presence increases, rather than decreases our GDP) we have to lose the benefits of our biggest free trade deal, lose the ability to work in 27 other countries, lose investment in infrastructure in the most needy parts of the UK, threaten Northern Ireland's position in the UK, risk the termination of the Belfast Agreement, see jobs in atomic energy and medicine lost, risk the profitability of our financial services industry, see our economy decline and have a far less clear economic outlook for the next generation or so.
Leaving the EU to reduce inward migration. Honestly? It's a solution we can't afford, delivered in a way we can't agree on, to a problem we don't understand that is believed to create an issue that doesn't exist.
And people think remainers should stop "banging on about it"?
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
I understand your caution about polling data in the light of recent failures both re the referendum and the US presidency. It's wise to be cautious, however I can assure you that the main research agencies were more aghast than the punters, and have worked hard to remedy where they went wrong. In the most recent U.K. GE, one agency, I think it was ComRes, used a different methodology which correctly picked up the trend to Labour. The others took notice even if professional rivalry means they will never admit it openly.
When it comes to Brexit, I think the most reliable barometer is a "tracker", a poll that asks the same sample the same question over time. The absolute figure is less important than the trend. The biggest of its kind, from YouGov, shows a clear trend towards more people favouring Remain but up to now I don't think it showed as wide a gap as 54:46. So Channel 4 may be an outlier. Or it could be the very latest indicator that the will of the people is slowly but steadily shifting. A 20k sample is not to be sniffed at.
An interesting test of the pollsters will come tonight from,the US. I am not sure if it's right to assume the problems of pollsters in the US are the same as in the U.K., nevertheless, if the Democrats fail to win enough seats to take Congress, the pollsters still have a problem. However if they do, it suggests the pollsters have got to grips with the political changes, which require a new approach to the sample balance.