Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

lisyloo

I don’t agree that everything the BOE, IMF, CBI, business people (like Branson) say is relying on supposition.
At the moment I do think they need to concentrate fully on stopping no deal than spend time promoting the alternatives (the right time for that was before the referendum).

I also don’t agree that the sole aim is to overturn the referendum result.
Philip Hammond (as an example) voted 3 times for the withdrawal agreement, so I don’t agree we’re all going for remain.

Yes sure there are some bad individuals and tactics on the remain side as there are throughout the political spectrum.
They should be held up to equal scrutiny whichever side they are on.

Surely if you have an open mind you can’t believe one side is all good and the other side are all baddies.

Conina

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe you could challenge these Brexiteer myths and 'half truths' while you are at it?

Don't you think that really you should be challenging the [STRIKE]media personnel[/STRIKE] numpties responsible for putting such "myths and half-truths" in the publications that you so diligently list since they are the ones responsible for what so obviously offends you?

lisyloo

Conina wrote: »

Don't you think that really you should be challenging the [STRIKE]media personnel[/STRIKE] numpties responsible for putting such "myths and half-truths" in the publications that you so diligently list since they are the ones responsible for what so obviously offends you?

I don’t.
Media people’s jobs is to sell papers. As long as they are within the law that’s ok.
That’s different from MPs who have different obligations.

Conina

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t.
Media people’s jobs is to sell papers. As long as they are within the law that’s ok.
That’s different from MPs who have different obligations.

Well both you and StevieJ are going to have a hard time challenging those half-truths and myths if neither of you are prepared to challenge the people that are making them - especially since it's all apparently done to sell papers in which case blatantly lying is perfectly legal and okay according to you but at least now I get why some remainers are as they are because you're saying that lying is OK if it suits your agenda!
Whatever happened to your "everything should be up for scrutiny" stance from a few posts ago, that didn't last long did it?

lisyloo

No lying is NOT ok and it’s not legal to libel, slander or defame people.

Being biased, having an agenda or opinion is fine for a publication, not so for an MP.

Yes everything is up for scrutiny.

Endless rants at biased publications are fair game, but a bit pointles when we all know certain publications are blatantly biased on both sides.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

You think it’s OK for remainer myths and half truths to pass without challenge?

What about leaver myths? You've repeated enough of them in the past, and seem happy to ignore the rest.


Lies should be corrected on both sides.

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

Being biased, having an agenda or opinion is fine for a publication, not so for an MP.

Being biased is much worse for a publication than it is for an MP. An MP's job is to represent their party and the wider political tribe. If they are a red MP it is their job to fly the red flag and likewise if they are blue. If they are not biased they are not doing their job, they are betraying the party line.

If you want to be an MP but you don't want to be biased you stand as an Independent. Virtually nobody does, or not successfully.

Newspapers by contrast are not directly affiliated to political groups. They at least make a pretense of reporting the facts without bias. Opinion pieces are clearly marked as such in separate sections, whereas MPs always state political opinions as if they are facts. Newspapers have leanings but unlike MPs, they are not directly affiliated with any political party. Even Tory-leaning papers support Labour on occasion (e.g. 1997).

There are no whips in the media industry who will punish the Telegraph for disagreeing with a Tory policy or the Mirror for disagreeing with a Labour one.

The remainder campaign failed big time to promote the benefits of remaining.

I think this is a little unfair on Remain. They spent millions of both their own money and taxpayers' money on promoting the benefits of remaining. They pulled every trick in the book to promote the benefits of remaining. (Remember the hilarious "#ChillIN - #RavIN - #VotIN" ads with white middle-class 20-something Europeans chortling and splashing around in the ocean together?) It's not their fault that the arguments were rubbish and the benefits unconvincing. You can only do so much with the cards you are dealt.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

Lies should be corrected on both sides.

Nobody would disagree with that, that's a truism. Remainers however have gone beyond that to say that lies on one side should result in the referendum being annulled. Which, if it was done, would mean the abolition of democracy in this country, as the result of every single election or democratic contest would also have to be annulled.

As Daniel Finkelstein (a Remainer) said in The Times today, Labour has lied about spending on the NHS in every single election for the last 50 years. The Tories have of course done exactly the same in different areas.

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

Nobody would disagree with that, that's a truism. Remainers however have gone beyond that to say that lies on one side should result in the referendum being annulled. Which, if it was done, would mean the abolition of democracy in this country, as the result of every single election or democratic contest would also have to be annulled.

The lies were serious enough to mislead the public and sway it to a tiny majority. Even Banks (major funder of Leave.EU admits they only won due to lying). Various countries have annulled referendum results when the information was misleading, it's not a big barrier to democracy.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

At the moment I do think they need to concentrate fully on stopping no deal than spend time promoting the alternatives (the right time for that was before the referendum).

In your view the UK has to accept whatever deal is on the table? Whatever it contains that is to to the detriment of the UK. MP's rejected TM's half baked compromise deal.