Jeremy corbyn (3 Viewers)

[clint van damme]

Look at the amount of remain on the panel compared to leave? And Fiona Bruce never gives the pro brexit panel any time always cutting them short.

The only true remain party of the 3 major parties is lib dems and they are hugely under represented.
At one point earlier in the year the show never had a lib dems on for 3 weeks.
And I say that as someone who has no time for them whatsoever.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

Look at the amount of remain on the panel compared to leave? And Fiona Bruce never gives the pro brexit panel any time always cutting them short.

The first bit isn’t actually true. The opposite in fact is true. As for the cutting of, to be fair there’s only so many times you can hear the “will of the people”, “positive thinking” and “we know what we voted for” on loop

 

[Grendel]

The only true remain party of the 3 major parties is lib dems and they are hugely under represented.
At one point earlier in the year the show never had a lib dems on for 3 weeks.
And I say that as someone who has no time for them whatsoever.

The Lib Dem’s until the recent defections had only 7 more MPs than the DUP and Sinn Fein - on a proportional basis surely they are over represented aren’t they? Farage at one election had one in five vote for him.

 

[skybluetony176]

The only true remain party of the 3 major parties is lib dems and they are hugely under represented.
At one point earlier in the year the show never had a lib dems on for 3 weeks.
And I say that as someone who has no time for them whatsoever.

Geoff Norcott and Nish Kumar have had more appearances than the Lib Dem’s. So basically the Mash Report TV programme has had more representation than the Lib Dem’s.

 

[Sick Boy]

The Lib Dem’s until the recent defections had only 7 more MPs than the DUP and Sinn Fein - on a proportional basis surely they are over represented aren’t they? Farage at one election had one in five vote for him.

That’s weird, it wasn’t that long ago that you were calling him irrelevant.

 

[Grendel]

That’s weird, it wasn’t that long ago that you were calling him irrelevant.

He is but so are the Lib Dem’s - they are hugely over exposed on programmes like question time and have been for years

 

[westcountry_skyblue]

Maybe you need to lay off reading the Daily Mail/Express...

I don’t need media to make my mind up who I follow,Do you?

 

[Sick Boy]

He is but so are the Lib Dem’s - they are hugely over exposed on programmes like question time and have been for years

So how does that make it a ‘remain programme’? It’s absurd to suggest it is. The Lib Dems are more relevant than Farage though, who has consistently failed to even become an MP

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If labour got in they would go and get us the worst deal in history,They'd be like a dog having his belly tickled.
Then bring it back to Westminster and vote against their own negotiated deal.
You couldn't make it up.

No you couldn't make it up, because that's what the Tories did, inc Brexit secretaries Davis and Raab

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

No it isn't.

It would be a stupid decision. The EU wants a deal. We want a deal. But you want the chance by law for us not to be able to make or accept a deal.

But the proble with the impasse is that apparently everyone wants a deal, no-one will agree to one. So the whole thing keeps on getting put back and put back, which is hardly going to force anyone hand because so many of those negotiating on both sides don't really want us to leave anyway.

Maybe if you had/threatened a second referendum with no deal as the default, legally binding, choice it might just get them all to pull their finger out and sort it out? As it is there is no incentive for them to do so.

 

[Astute]

But the proble with the impasse is that apparently everyone wants a deal, no-one will agree to one. So the whole thing keeps on getting put back and put back, which is hardly going to force anyone hand because so many of those negotiating on both sides don't really want us to leave anyway.

Maybe if you had/threatened a second referendum with no deal as the default, legally binding, choice it might just get them all to pull their finger out and sort it out? As it is there is no incentive for them to do so.

Sounds like a good idea. But we don't have a clue which way it would go. So leave without a deal is voted for? We would either leave without a deal or ignore another vote. Then could anyone say we are not after a certain result only?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Sounds like a good idea. But we don't have a clue which way it would go. So leave without a deal is voted for? We would either leave without a deal or ignore another vote. Then could anyone say we are not after a certain result only?

No we don't know which way it would go, but hopefully that would put the more moderates on both sides in a more prominent position. One of the key things would be it being legally binding so the result would HAVE to be done and hence why the option would have to be no deal so there could be no arguments over what leave meant. Technically under the previous referendum it wasn't binding so anyone could, at any point, say "we're not doing it" and there would be no legal comeback. The reason they haven't (apart from the LD in the past day or so) is political comeback as being seen to be undemocratic.

So if it's legally binding the hard-Remain both here and in the EU have the choice to risk a no-deal but with the incentive of getting the whole thing called off. Similarly hard-Leave risk a Remain vote but have the incentive of the hard Brexit they desire, so in essence the two extremes would hopefully cancel out. Which hopefully focuses the minds of those in the middle on both sides who think a Hard Brexit is too much to risk either way or the risk of not getting Brexit at all to get a compromise sorted before they risk losing everything altogether.

It's by no means a foolproof plan, but considering where we are 3 years in it's got as much chance of succeeding as anything else.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

No you couldn't make it up, because that's what the Tories did, inc Brexit secretaries Davis and Raab

He he he

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Question time is pro remain? HAHA! Nigel Farage has the record number of appearances this century and isn't an MP!

It could be a good tactic...how many have ended up with a dislike, dispute or disbelief for/of him due to the exposure?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[clint van damme]

It could be a good tactic...how many have ended up with a dislike, dispute or disbelief for/of him due to the exposure?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

not sure that's the BBCs intention!

 

[SkyblueBazza]

not sure that's the BBCs intention!

Neither am I, but you can't discount it. There has to be a good reason they keep putting him on.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Astute]

No we don't know which way it would go, but hopefully that would put the more moderates on both sides in a more prominent position. One of the key things would be it being legally binding so the result would HAVE to be done and hence why the option would have to be no deal so there could be no arguments over what leave meant. Technically under the previous referendum it wasn't binding so anyone could, at any point, say "we're not doing it" and there would be no legal comeback. The reason they haven't (apart from the LD in the past day or so) is political comeback as being seen to be undemocratic.

So if it's legally binding the hard-Remain both here and in the EU have the choice to risk a no-deal but with the incentive of getting the whole thing called off. Similarly hard-Leave risk a Remain vote but have the incentive of the hard Brexit they desire, so in essence the two extremes would hopefully cancel out. Which hopefully focuses the minds of those in the middle on both sides who think a Hard Brexit is too much to risk either way or the risk of not getting Brexit at all to get a compromise sorted before they risk losing everything altogether.

It's by no means a foolproof plan, but considering where we are 3 years in it's got as much chance of succeeding as anything else.

But anything can succeed if risking a no deal. That is what so many are having a go at BJ for.

I'm not happy to risk anything for a no deal even though I expect things to be sorted by the end of the transition period.

 

[shmmeee]

I don’t need media to make my mind up who I follow,Do you?

Meet all the politicians personally do you?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The only true remain party of the 3 major parties is lib dems and they are hugely under represented.
At one point earlier in the year the show never had a lib dems on for 3 weeks.
And I say that as someone who has no time for them whatsoever.

Fairly sure they now have more MPs from defections than elections

 

[Sick Boy]

But anything can succeed if risking a no deal. That is what so many are having a go at BJ for.

I'm not happy to risk anything for a no deal even though I expect things to be sorted by the end of the transition period.

Under no deal there wouldn’t be a transition period.

 

[skybluetony176]

Under no deal there wouldn’t be a transition period.

It’s Groundhog Day again.

 

[Ian1779]

I don’t need media to make my mind up who I follow,Do you?

Not at all... it would be nice to see one of those ‘sensationalised’ comments to be backed up with any kind of tangible evidence.

Just even once....

 

[Sick Boy]

Neither am I, but you can't discount it. There has to be a good reason they keep putting him on.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Maybe because it’s not a biased remain programme?

 

[Astute]

Under no deal there wouldn’t be a transition period.

Not exactly true though is it.

We can have a debate on it if you like as long as you keep to the truth.

 

[Grendel]

Under no deal there wouldn’t be a transition period.

You know what he means

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Although as I've said before I'm in favour of a 2nd ref with clearly defined outcomes I think the idea by Corbyn/Labour could be a little disingenuous.

In the detail it says a 'Labour-negotiated Brexit deal'.

1. I thought one of the big arguments was about how the government was sidelining everyone else, so surely it should be a cross-party negotiated deal.

2. Basically it's saying Brexit is called off until Labour has negotiated a deal with the EU, which is then put as the leave option in a referendum. Apart from the possibility that this could again potentially be misinterpreted by people as to the meaning of the wording (it would depend on what is negotiated and how it is written) it could potentially see Brexit being postponed indefinitely and in essence cancelled. If the EU and as many suspect many in Labour don't want to actually leave there is no incentive to actually negotiate a leaving deal to put forward to the public. Besides which even if they did there is still then the chance the public will vote remain.

But more than this it seems the options would likely be Remain or a number of the conventions being retained even if we leave, so those that do want a clean break haven't got an option at all. Now I know most of those that campaigned for Leave did say that a number of different options were available and various conventions would still be kept after Brexit, but this policy comes across to me as a get-out-of-Brexit-free card masquerading as a second referendum.

It would likely lead to a more palatable outcome for me given my beliefs, but it just seems rather disingenuous.

 

[skybluetony176]

You know what he means

What does he mean then? Because last time he went on one about this he argued every man and his dog was wrong until FP posted the same as every man and his dog at which point he agreed completely.

 

[Grendel]

What does he mean then? Because last time he went on one about this he argued every man and his dog was wrong until FP posted the same as every man and his dog at which point he agreed completely.

Why do you have to talk on behalf on monkey boy Tony?

 

[Sick Boy]

Not exactly true though is it.

We can have a debate on it if you like as long as you keep to the truth.

If you genuinely that’s going to be comparable to the actual transitional period as part of an agreement then good luck!

 

[Ian1779]

Although as I've said before I'm in favour of a 2nd ref with clearly defined outcomes I think the idea by Corbyn/Labour could be a little disingenuous.

In the detail it says a 'Labour-negotiated Brexit deal'.

1. I thought one of the big arguments was about how the government was sidelining everyone else, so surely it should be a cross-party negotiated deal.

2. Basically it's saying Brexit is called off until Labour has negotiated a deal with the EU, which is then put as the leave option in a referendum. Apart from the possibility that this could again potentially be misinterpreted by people as to the meaning of the wording (it would depend on what is negotiated and how it is written) it could potentially see Brexit being postponed indefinitely and in essence cancelled. If the EU and as many suspect many in Labour don't want to actually leave there is no incentive to actually negotiate a leaving deal to put forward to the public. Besides which even if they did there is still then the chance the public will vote remain.

But more than this it seems the options would likely be Remain or a number of the conventions being retained even if we leave, so those that do want a clean break haven't got an option at all. Now I know most of those that campaigned for Leave did say that a number of different options were available and various conventions would still be kept after Brexit, but this policy comes across to me as a get-out-of-Brexit-free card masquerading as a second referendum.

It would likely lead to a more palatable outcome for me given my beliefs, but it just seems rather disingenuous.

I get your point and see where you are coming from, but I am left wondering how on earth we will ever get any kind of deal, because essentially we have this notion of things not being ‘Brexity’ enough.

Withdrawal Agreement, Customs Union 2.0, EEA, Norway plus and goodness knows what else. Where is the line between being enough/not enough.

I know some will think Labour’s plan is disingenuous - and that will be thought of Leavers who think it’s stacked towards remain, and vice versa.

But when in reality the 2 extremes are not really acceptable - where do you go?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I get your point and see where you are coming from, but I am left wondering how on earth we will ever get any kind of deal, because essentially we have this notion of things not being ‘Brexity’ enough.

Withdrawal Agreement, Customs Union 2.0, EEA, Norway plus and goodness knows what else. Where is the line between being enough/not enough.

I know some will think Labour’s plan is disingenuous - and that will be thought of Leavers who think it’s stacked towards remain, and vice versa.

But when in reality the 2 extremes are not really acceptable - where do you go?

Personally I prefer this Labour option to the LD 'scrap Brexit' line, which is very much putting all their eggs in one basket. With that policy pretty much any other policy issue will almost be an irrelevance as it's specifically targeted at hard-remain voters. Similarly they'll have considered that not matter how good any of their other policies might be leavers will not vote for them. They probably even know it'll cost them quite a few votes from moderate remainers.

As a risky strategy it's up there with the agreeing to student tuition fee increases in exchange for an AV referendum. That was a monumental error - will this be as well?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I get your point and see where you are coming from, but I am left wondering how on earth we will ever get any kind of deal, because essentially we have this notion of things not being ‘Brexity’ enough.

Withdrawal Agreement, Customs Union 2.0, EEA, Norway plus and goodness knows what else. Where is the line between being enough/not enough.

I know some will think Labour’s plan is disingenuous - and that will be thought of Leavers who think it’s stacked towards remain, and vice versa.

But when in reality the 2 extremes are not really acceptable - where do you go?

As I've said before I think we've reached a point where the only option is to threaten the two extremes of Remain and No Deal in a legally-binding second referenduml. Truly focus the minds of the moderates on both sides to sort something out and agree to it in the EU/Parliament or both will end up getting something neither of them want because as you say neither option is really acceptable.

The extremes on both sides may well like it, but it'd be an extremely risky game for either of them to support because they could lose everything - it's an 'all in' position.

It's a very risky strategy but if you want to actually move the situation along it seems to me to be the only move left. A GE would still lead to fighting because whichever side 'lost' they would say a GE is a multi-issue vote and thus not necessarily truly representative of the popular opinion on Brexit.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Maybe because it’s not a biased remain programme?

Personally I don't believe it is.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[CCFCSteve]

As I've said before I think we've reached a point where the only option is to threaten the two extremes of Remain and No Deal in a legally-binding second referenduml. Truly focus the minds of the moderates on both sides to sort something out and agree to it in the EU/Parliament or both will end up getting something neither of them want because as you say neither option is really acceptable.

The extremes on both sides may well like it, but it'd be an extremely risky game for either of them to support because they could lose everything - it's an 'all in' position.

It's a very risky strategy but if you want to actually move the situation along it seems to me to be the only move left. A GE would still lead to fighting because whichever side 'lost' they would say a GE is a multi-issue vote and thus not necessarily truly representative of the popular opinion on Brexit.

I agree that something needs to be done to bring it to a head SBD but I think most people want/will accept a compromise which is why having the two extreme options in a second ref vote would feel a bit strange.

I still hope/believe that, even at this late stage, a sensible deal is possible. My concern is that this just moves us to the next stage of this Brexit nightmare (and I voted for it....and if truth be told probably still would....maybe just a sucker for punishment !)

 

[Astute]

What does he mean then? Because last time he went on one about this he argued every man and his dog was wrong until FP posted the same as every man and his dog at which point he agreed completely.

More bullshit from yourself. Or would you like to show evidence for once.

Of course you won't.