Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

Also worth noting that with increased complexity comes exponentially increased costs. Or, rather, putting in a new tube Line would cost absolutely billions to dance around all the existing gubbins that sits under London, not to mention the much higher private land costs (even with compulsory purchasing), etc. Building a similar system in Leeds would cost a lot less (and similarly, providing public transport in Scotland is very costly for geographic reasons). So it may be the case that London gets X times more funding than somewhere else, but that doesn't necessarily mean it gets X times more "infrastructure" out of it.

 

[Lazlo Woodbine]

Ahhh, a real LBC caller in it's natural habitat.

 

[tuxfool]

But how?

By virtue of requiring it to be discussed in parliament. They have to put a proposal in front of MPs, and they can't do this "she said, he said" BS, where stances seemingly change on a weekly basis. At the moment they can say whatever is politically expedient to the audience, and suffer no repercussions (other than looking completely unprepared).

 

[CyclopsRock]

By virtue of requiring it to be discussed in parliament. They have to put a proposal in front of MPs, and they can't do this "she said, he said" BS, where stances seemingly change on a weekly basis. At the moment they can say whatever is politically expedient to the audience, and suffer no repercussions (other than looking completely unprepared).

I think this'll do less to make it transparent than you think. They can discuss it in parliament all they want, but the reality is that the negotiations will be - as they need to be - done behind closed doors. As long as this is the case, the actual outcome won't be affected by parliament at all, because without being privy to the options available or the flow of the negotiations, we can't know whether May and co held parliament's desires in good faith.

Or, to give an example, let's say parliament gets together and only passes the A50 bill if there's an amendment instructing the government to attempt to maintain single market membership. 2 years later we get to the end of negotiations and, lo and behold, we're hard brexiting. Did we do that because May ignored parliament? Did we do this because the EU offered us a deal that wasn't actually good for the UK? Did we do this because the EU didn't offer it at all? And to what extent were all these possible options impacted by the fact that the negotiations started with the EU knowing what our desired outcomes were?

 

[system11]

Just curious from anyone in the know; is it possible for the UK to simply hold another vote and undo this all? Or is it set in stone with no backsies?

That would be the European way to approach it - keep asking the question until you get the answer you wanted. That's why we're here to begin with. Be aware the MSM is biased, aside from a core of Remain backers who are entitled to their opinion, if you actually speak to people there's little appetite to re-run it. It's a bit like Nicola Sturgeon going on about indyrefs every few months. She badly, desperately wants it and claims to speak for the majority of Scots, but it's simply not the case.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

aside from a core of Remain backers who are entitled to their opinion, if you actually speak to people there's little appetite to re-run it.

If you ignore everyone who wants it re-run, nobody wants to re-run it.

 

[kmag]

I think this'll do less to make it transparent than you think. They can discuss it in parliament all they want, but the reality is that the negotiations will be - as they need to be - done behind closed doors. As long as this is the case, the actual outcome won't be affected by parliament at all, because without being privy to the options available or the flow of the negotiations, we can't know whether May and co held parliament's desires in good faith.

Or, to give an example, let's say parliament gets together and only passes the A50 bill if there's an amendment instructing the government to attempt to maintain single market membership. 2 years later we get to the end of negotiations and, lo and behold, we're hard brexiting. Did we do that because May ignored parliament? Did we do this because the EU offered us a deal that wasn't actually good for the UK? Did we do this because the EU didn't offer it at all? And to what extent were all these possible options impacted by the fact that the negotiations started with the EU knowing what our desired outcomes were?

The negotiations will be pretty open. Under treaty the EU Parliament has to be informed.

The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12008E218

 

[Maledict]

Yep, it's another reason why the entire 'keep our strategy secret' plan was always a completely load of bollocks. This is a process that is going to take the best part of a decade to conclude, and will require consent from 27 other governments and the European Parliament. It's not like an episode of the West Wing where you can surprise win someone over in a meeting and fix the world. Everything, every detail, will be on public display as we go.

 

[TimmmV]

If you ignore everyone who wants it re-run, nobody wants to re-run it.

Thats not entirely fair, there are plenty of remainers who recognise its fairly redundant to just re-run the referendum until the result is to stay in. It would kind of make a mockery of the whole point.

Be aware the MSM is biased

Absolute nonsense

 

[CyclopsRock]

The negotiations will be pretty open. Under treaty the EU Parliament has to be informed.



http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12008E218

Ooh, this makes it more interesting! I'm still not convinced though, owing to the obvious handicap of going in showing our cards. If we go in with them knowing we want to achieve X, Y and Z, don't they basically have us over a barrel? Compared to if they don't know what we're willing to sacrifice and thus what they can afford to not offer.

Yep, it's another reason why the entire 'keep our strategy secret' plan was always a completely load of bollocks. This is a process that is going to take the best part of a decade to conclude, and will require consent from 27 other governments and the European Parliament. It's not like an episode of the West Wing where you can surprise win someone over in a meeting and fix the world. Everything, every detail, will be on public display as we go.

TPP had to be agreed by every government involved too, but the actual negotiation process remained behind closed doors. I must admit, I wasn't aware of the need for the EU to report back to the EUP at all, though.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Asking the same question seems a bit pointless. I wouldn't really be against having an "Are you sure" referendum after the final deal has been thrashed out, but I'm not sure if it's practical in reality. The nature of Art. 50 seems to mean that we'd have to go through with it at that point anyway, and even if it didn't the promise of such a referendum would surely taint the negotiations.

So all in all I'd say forget a second referendum. Brexit is happening.

 

[tuxfool]

Be aware the MSM is biased

Bullshit. You sound like one of those Breitbart readers.

 

[system11]

Absolute nonsense

No, it's very clearly the case. The Sun (a tabloid) is part of MSM, the Telegraph is part of the MSM, the BBC and the Guardian are part of the MSM. The only one which is supposed to be impartial under its own rules is the BBC, but in reality it's primarily left wing and pro-EU. The other publications have historic and accepted bias one way or the other. It's why their readers buy them, for the confirmation bias value.

To claim the MSM isn't biased is to claim that The Daily Mail and The Guardian are unbiased, and nobody would claim that even for a second because they're actually the extremes and making a reader of one digest an edition of the other will make them spit fire.

This doesn't mean they report fake news, it means editorial 'colour' is attached to stories, and some may get more air time than others in a selective fashion. In the initial aftermath of the vote, you could see it by the amount of DOOM present in various publications, the conclusions they came to.

 

[system11]

Bullshit. You sound like one of those Breitbart readers.

No thanks, you can keep it.

 

[kmag]

Ooh, this makes it more interesting! I'm still not convinced though, owing to the obvious handicap of going in showing our cards. If we go in with them knowing we want to achieve X, Y and Z, don't they basically have us over a barrel? Compared to if they don't know what we're willing to sacrifice and thus what they can afford to not offer.



TPP had to be agreed by every government involved too, but the actual negotiation process remained behind closed doors. I must admit, I wasn't aware of the need for the EU to report back to the EUP at all, though.

The EUP had the Trade Commissioner come in and basically state the current position to the EUP Trade committee after every negotiation round of CETA and TTIP

 

[Maledict]

I'm really not sure what your point is here.

Every newspaper and media source has a bias, either deliberate (Daily Mail, Guardian) or not (BBC). That doesn't invalidate them at all, you just need to bear it in mind. It's also worth noting there are degrees of bias - the Daily Mail is objectively far more biased than the Guardian (look at the number of corrections they have to publish).

In terms of the overall media spectrum in the U.K., it is extremely biased towards leaving Europe. The two most popular newspapers were heavily in favour (the Mail and the Sunand have been spreading lies and campaigning on the issue for decades now. As has the Express and the Telegraph. The Mirror / Guardian / Independent / Times circulation pales in comparison to those newspapers. The BBC is accused by all sides of being biased, so generally that leaves me thinking it's probably doing an okay job and occasionally steps over the the line in both directions.

In terms of the media reporting doom, I'm not sure you were actually reading the press? Didn't you see the number of front pages the Mail / Sun. / Express put out about how glorious it was, our Independence Day etc? Plus, when the entire world except Russia thinks what you are doing is a colossal fuck up, you're gong to find a lot of experts and people telling you it's a fuck up...

 

[tuxfool]

No, it's very clearly the case. The Sun (a tabloid) is part of MSM, the Telegraph is part of the MSM, the BBC and the Guardian are part of the MSM. The only one which is supposed to be impartial under its own rules is the BBC, but in reality it's primarily left wing and pro-EU. The other publications have historic and accepted bias one way or the other. It's why their readers buy them, for the confirmation bias value.

To claim the MSM isn't biased is to claim that The Daily Mail and The Guardian are unbiased, and nobody would claim that even for a second because they're actually the extremes and making a reader of one digest an edition of the other will make them spit fire.

This doesn't mean they report fake news, it means editorial 'colour' is attached to stories, and some may get more air time than others in a selective fashion. In the initial aftermath of the vote, you could see it by the amount of DOOM present in various publications, the conclusions they came to.

Maybe you should have said that to begin with. Each publication has its own slant, by putting it down to MSM you're essentially throwing the credibility of all publications under the same umbrella, when in fact one should be more exacting. What you essentially said was that the MSM all proposes that there should be a re-vote, when this isn't true. The likes of the Daily Mail or the Express would nuke their own offices before suggesting such an act.

This is why I called you a Breitbart reader, because you seemingly didn't understand the differences and saw only one slant. And it was you against the evil MSM.

 

[system11]

I have hopes Trump will kill the TTIP stone dead. There's a very good group in the UK who have been campaigning against that one (38 degrees).

 

[TimmmV]

No, it's very clearly the case. The Sun (a tabloid) is part of MSM, the Telegraph is part of the MSM, the BBC and the Guardian are part of the MSM. The only one which is supposed to be impartial under its own rules is the BBC, but in reality it's primarily left wing and pro-EU. The other publications have historic and accepted bias one way or the other. It's why their readers buy them, for the confirmation bias value.

To claim the MSM isn't biased is to claim that The Daily Mail and The Guardian are unbiased, and nobody would claim that even for a second because they're actually the extremes and making a reader of one digest an edition of the other will make them spit fire.

This doesn't mean they report fake news, it means editorial 'colour' is attached to stories, and some may get more air time than others in a selective fashion. In the initial aftermath of the vote, you could see it by the amount of DOOM present in various publications, the conclusions they came to.

Of course the media has an inherent bias. You however brought up the "MSM" in response to being asked whether it was possible to have a second referendum as if its an agenda that they are pushing, when thats clearly a load of horseshit. The majority of media in the UK are pro-brexit

edit: plus everything Maledict just said

I have hopes Trump will kill the TTIP stone dead. There's a very good group in the UK who have been campaigning against that one (38 degrees).

Again, I agree with you. But why have you brought this up? It doesn't really have anything to do with either the referendum or the "MSM"

 

[kmag]

I have hopes Trump will kill the TTIP stone dead. There's a very good group in the UK who have been campaigning against that one (38 degrees).

TTIP is dead as a dodo, it was before Trump. The EU wasn't going to accept it especially once it's biggest cheerleader had voted to exit the Union.

Trump is mad keen to do a trade deal with the UK. Why wouldn't he be, the UK is desperate and has little low cost manufacturing which would poach US jobs.

 

[tuxfool]

TTIP is dead as a dodo, it was before Trump. The EU wasn't going to accept it especially once it's biggest cheerleader had voted to exit the Union.

Trump is mad keen to do a trade deal with the UK. Why wouldn't he be, the UK is desperate and has little low cost manufacturing which would poach US jobs.

Remains to be seen if such a deal can even be executed during the term of his Presidency.

 

[system11]

Maybe you should have said that to begin with. Each publication has its own slant, by putting it down to MSM you're essentially throwing the credibility of all publications under the same umbrella, when in fact one should be more exacting. What you essentially said was that the MSM all proposes that there should be a re-vote, when this isn't true. The likes of the Daily Mail or the Express would nuke their own offices before suggesting such an act.

People need to not take everything so literally.

For example the BBC (and I keep using them as an example because I am /forced/ to pay for them and rather wish they would stick to their own rules) are clearly pro-EU, clearly bought into 'project fear' and at one point started headlining anything bad and making a small story for anything good, prefixed with "despite Brexit". They even hid the scandalous IMF Euro currency bias story so deep in the business section that you could only find it by using the site search.

Of course everyone is back pedalling on the doom mongering now. There's a difference between going full doom and simply stating concerns.

 

[system11]

Again, I agree with you. But why have you brought this up? It doesn't really have anything to do with either the referendum or the "MSM"

Oh, just because kmag mentioned it, nothing more. Actually the US/EU TTIP push was relevant to the vote though - it was one of the things I considered while trying to decide which vote to place.

 

[Maledict]

The BBC reported on what almost every freaking expert in the world was saying and thought. You cannot give equal time on issues when one side is 90% of the experts and the other side 10%.

 

[Par Score]

I think for a certain group of people, like myself, it will never not be an issue. The fact that rights that I was born with have been stripped away from by people aged 70+ is a really horrifying thing, and regardless of the economic outcome I have been left with an incredibly dark and unpleasant view of a large part of my country. That hasn't gone away et, 6 months later, and I don't expect it ever will.

This is exactly me.

I reserve a similar scorn for Leavers as I do for people who oppose marriage equality, or anyone else who would seek to take my basic and fundamental rights away.

 

[kmag]

Oh, just because kmag mentioned it, nothing more. Actually the US/EU TTIP push was relevant to the vote though - it was one of the things I considered while trying to decide which vote to place.

TTIP (or Trumps version of it now shudder the thought) is far more likely as a UK-US bilateral treaty than it would be as a US-EU treaty.

Under both the coalition and the current government the UK was the main proponent of it within the EU. The main pushback on it has always been from France, some parts of Belgium and Germany.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

I think for a certain group of people, like myself, it will never not be an issue. The fact that rights that I was born with have been stripped away from by people aged 70+ is a really horrifying thing, and regardless of the economic outcome I have been left with an incredibly dark and unpleasant view of a large part of my country. That hasn't gone away et, 6 months later, and I don't expect it ever will.

Yep, I value my EU citizenship, and deeply resent having it removed from me without my consent.

 

[tuxfool]

People need to not take everything so literally.

For example the BBC (and I keep using them as an example because I am /forced/ to pay for them and rather wish they would stick to their own rules) are clearly pro-EU, clearly bought into 'project fear' and at one point started headlining anything bad and making a small story for anything good, prefixed with "despite Brexit". They even hid the scandalous IMF Euro currency bias story so deep in the business section that you could only find it by using the site search.

Of course everyone is back pedalling on the doom mongering now. There's a difference between going full doom and simply stating concerns.

I'm back to my Breitbart theory. Your confirmation bias so strong, it is fairly laughable that you're taking newspapers to task for bias.

Even if they were impartial to a fault, you wouldn't be able to see it.