BBC bias: Brexit

[woody2]

30 minutes ago, Declan said:

I don’t think you are going to see the benefit of what I see as benefits. 

Free movement of people, goods and services. 

Being part of a co-operative mutually supportive community of nations. 

The cosmopolitanising and liberalising effect it was having on Britain. 

but its not free......

[Mr. Sausages]

6 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Declan, if you cannot see how the BBC stating that A is “expected to be found guilty” is highly prejudicial you are blind. 

 

4 hours ago, Declan said:

I made no comment on that. 

In who's favour do you think the bias is? It was passed to the BBC by Vote Leave along with their rebuttal. 

 

Here we have remoaners complaining that the BBC weren't interested in the story until Vote Leave wanted them to run the story.  

 

 

[woody2]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That won’t happen, because

1. The labour darent have a second referendum. They know what the result would be and it would finish them.

2. I think the labour know they have to stick together until Brexit is reality, because an election now would see them decimated. Forget the opinion polls, it’d be the very open infighting that would do them in.

 

no difference from either political party john......

it was never a left-right issue, the remoans can't see that......

[woody2]

what interesting is labour-momentum did the same in the last election......

[Lost Login]

6 hours ago, Chinahand said:

To be frank I am amazed at the contempt of the judicial system the BBC is showing in this story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561

The official Brexit campaign is expected to be found guilty of four charges of breaking electoral law, the BBC has been told.

Expected to be found guilty - who expects this. Talk about being prejudicial to any legal action. 

The presumptuousness being displayed is breath taking. 

It beggars belief and I hope they’ll be held to account for such arrogance and contempt to an ongoing judicial case. 

I think you are being a bit harsh as I think that they are purely reporting that Vote Leave are stating that they expect to be found guilty of breaking electoral law. I would agree with you if they had just picked a report that Vote Leave were going to be charged and that the BBC then presumed that they would be found guilty but I don't think this is the case. Rather it is Vote Leave getting their retaliation in first by stating that they expect the report to find them guilty and then to argue whilst the report is not valid

[woody2]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said:

 

 

Here we have remoaners complaining that the BBC weren't interested in the story until Vote Leave wanted them to run the story.  

 

 

they have already covered the last 2 outcomes.....

campbell is been paid by the eu.....

he should be at the hague.....

[Mr. Sausages]

#Snowflake #triggered #muslimbrotherhood

[Lost Login]

4 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

I'm not sure what the problem is, both camps were full of bullshit, lies and dirty tricks, they will ultimately both be guilty of breaking rules. The impression I have of the whole nonsense is that the leave campaign were a bit more obvious about it.

Hard to disagree though the lievers seem to be found of trying to stick derogatory on those who want to remain so I have less sympathy for. In my view there was simply "project fear" against "project fantasy" at the time and now we have the "remoaners" against  the "lievers" 

The UK party system does not really suit the debate on this issue as both parties seem pretty split on the issue. It is therefore virtually impossible to get a consensus across a party. May is scared of making a decision because whatever she does will piss off one wing of the party so risk causing a huge split. She probably has a majority of remainers but the leavers are more vocal and make bigger waves.

Corbyn seems scared of his own shadow on the issue for similarly risking a party split. It is also ironic that May who was a remainer is in charged of leaving and that Corbyn who apparently is a leaver but to scared to admit it is the one who is meant to be challenging May over Brexit as the leader of the opposition.

In my view whether for or against Brexit should really not be a party issue but rather a free issue for each MP etc because quite simply just like the country neither party has a substantial majority one way or the other. That makes leaving it to party politics pretty difficult.

 

[woolley]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

  The Tories darent have a second referendum. They know what the result would be and it would finish them.

 

Opinion polls (for what good they are) don't seem to agree.

[woolley]

4 hours ago, Lxxx said:

'Simplistic tropes'!

Hadn't you noticed that anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as Pongo is inevitably simple?

[Barrie Stevens]

You know, I am thinking pull out. Get on with it. But pay the price and I don't think £40 billion etc.. I mean the cost of whatever is the impact of a "hard break" Brexit in computer speak. This thing is going nowhere now. . For those of an imperialist tendency think Dunkirk. Get out with what you have and anything you can carry and start again. But expect the modern version of "blood, toil, tears and sweat"...Just do it and put this poor sick dog called Brexit out of its misery.

[woolley]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

Theres an international convention, not an EU one, that states if spending limits ( as an example ) are exceeded then the vote can be declared void. Won’t happen in this case because the referendum result was advisory only, not mandatory. The decision to give Art. 50 notice was that of the executive, backed by the legislature. But that gives the lie to the Brexiteers monotonous claim that the people have spoken and the referendum result cannot be overturned, or a second referendum cannot be held once the outcome of negotiations are known. Or a general election between now and March 2019

 

Do you really believe that given the financial powerhouse forces backing it, the Remain campaign did not exceed its spending limit? That must be extremely hard to accept, even by a neutral.

The referendum was only advisory? Despite the wording issued by the government?

"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

That is a ridiculous and, I think we all know, politically untenable position.

But as you say, Article 50 was invoked by the executive with the backing of the legislature. Thank goodness then for Gina Miller. Farage should send her some roses. It's strange that the process seems to have serendipity on its side. Despite the dark forces trying to thwart the leaving process at each and every stage and damaging the national interest in the process, things do seem to have a habit of turning out positively in the end.

 

[woolley]

14 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said:

You know, I am thinking pull out. Get on with it. But pay the price and I don't think £40 billion etc.. I mean the cost of whatever is the impact of a "hard break" Brexit in computer speak. This thing is going nowhere now. . For those of an imperialist tendency think Dunkirk. Get out with what you have and anything you can carry and start again. But expect the modern version of "blood, toil, tears and sweat"...Just do it and put this poor sick dog called Brexit out of its misery.

It's such a mess now Bazza because of all of the backsliders, I think that we must just get out EVEN if it means a soft Brexit is the only thing they can get through Parliament. At least we will be out in name and in law and then subsequent Parliaments can build on that. It's the pragmatic approach.

The problem we have at the moment is that there is a substantial proportion of both parliamentarians and the population at large who even now still believe that the EU has a future. Some of them look at geopolitics on a very superficial, optimistic level and are apparently blind to events on the continent in political, financial and social spheres. Others are diehard liberals who would rather be run or heavily influenced by Brussels in all of its sophistry than solely by the government in London. It is quite shocking but unsurprising that people can be so unaware of the tide of history.

As it becomes clearer that the EU does not have a future, at least in anything like its current form, it will be more appealing and much easier to pass additional UK legislation to distance Britain further from the failing bloc. That might be a more gradual process than we hoped for, but I see the priority now as establishing a bridgehead outside the EU lest our own misguided compatriots drag us backwards into the maelstrom once more. The danger is real.

[Barrie Stevens]

Just about on the money Woolley. My main aim is that whatever else there is out there the UK will not be a good member of a federal EU aping  the USA and we should be out of that for our sake and for the sake of the other EU members. 

De Gaulle was right, He refused us Common Market entry. "Non!".. He could see that the Anglo-Saxon mind would not fit in..

EEA  or Norway etc might sweeten the pill as you say but we must now swallow that pill or go alone... I am inclined now to slip the cable and sail away...Sad but what else is there?

[Barrie Stevens]

Been here before!