4. Like politicians, I see the media as reinforcers of beliefs, not the instigators of them.

 

5. We've been through this many times - I've admitted that immigration is a factor, but IMO the proportion of the people who support the extreme-right parties for whom it is an issue, is too low for racist voters to have reversed the result

I could live with a second referendum as long at it was only about the *terms* of the deal, i.e. no option for rejecting Brexit entirely.

Ah, but unless roaming charges will be reimposed, & beach cleanliness standards dropped after Brexit, then voting Leave would not compromise those issues, and therefore not be a reason to vote Remain.

 

And since there is a whole big issue about EU laws being cut/pasted into British law after Brexit, we know the above will remain in force...

 

4. People are easily persuaded, history is replete with endless examples. You are deluding yourself that half the voters just randomly came to the same conclusion having never read a newspaper. Without gullibility there would be no crooks making mints out of them.

 

5. I never said racism. i said immigration. That is a major factor, or else you and everyone would be happy to remain in the Single market for the sake of our economy (but out of the political side of things).

 

A second referendum MUST havwe the option to remain as we are or else the Tories have carte blanche to create a completely useless deal and then threaten us with WTO terms which may well be even worse. "Take this shitty deal or else..." is not an option. The deal should be Take this deal, yes or no. If no, then we stay as we are. Leavers would be mobilised to say yes, presumably still 52% of the vote - or are you afraid that opinion has actually changed less than 2 years on...?

 

Cos it certainly sounds like it.

 

They will be reimposed, gradually, because the Tories are on the side of Big Business. Presumably all these hateful EU laws will be dropped like a brick at the behest of all you folk that loathe the EU, everything it stands for, and everything it has done.

 

Unless, gasp, the EU has our best interests at heart and, gasp, the government doesn't...!? :o Go on, say they were bad things, or try and support getting rid of them because you always have to stand up for anything that makes your stance look rather shaky...

4. People are easily persuaded, history is replete with endless examples. You are deluding yourself that half the voters just randomly came to the same conclusion having never read a newspaper. Without gullibility there would be no crooks making mints out of them.

 

Are you suggesting that *only* Remainers are capable of making up their own minds?

 

 

A second referendum MUST havwe the option to remain as we are or else the Tories have carte blanche to create a completely useless deal and then threaten us with WTO terms which may well be even worse. "Take this shitty deal or else..." is not an option. The deal should be Take this deal, yes or no. If no, then we stay as we are. Leavers would be mobilised to say yes, presumably still 52% of the vote - or are you afraid that opinion has actually changed less than 2 years on...?

 

Agreed for sure. No one, except that idiot in charge of Wetherspoons, thinks that no-deal is a good option, so to have it as a binary choice, accept this referendum or no, makes no sense. Particularly as the people who don't want it will be forced to either pick a bad option or implicitly agree with Brexit.

 

It should be a three-way referendum something along the lines of like 'accept the deal', 'reject this deal and renegotiate' (if we'd done this quicker we could have had that one) 'no deal' and 'cancel brexit'. To exclude the third from the options is so very undemocratic.

Are you suggesting that *only* Remainers are capable of making up their own minds?

You're making that old mistake of confusing a generalisation with a blanket statement tarring the whole of a group with the same brush. Saying that a lot of Leave voter were misled sons to mean that they all were.

 

The fact is that there are no papers whose coverage of the EU is anywhere near as relentlessly positive as that in the Mail and Express is negative. You only need to listen to the reasons given by lots of Leave voters to get an idea of how influential these papers' headlines were. Poole could quote these headlines but had no idea of the substance of the story. They also had no idea that a lot of those stories were simply untrue or that, at the very least, the headlines were extremely misleading.

 

Most people simply are not interested in politics. The politics rounds on Pointless make that all too obvious. On yesterday's programme people were asked to name any member of the Cabinet formed in 2016. Bear in mind that the 100 people would have been asked early last year or, possibly, in late 2016. Only 18 people named Theresa May. The contestants were just as bad. One of them thought that Farage was in the Cabinet. Even the contestant who said May wasn't sure whether it was right. I obviously have no idea how these people voted in the referendum, but it is rather alarming that such an important decision was entrusted to people who are so ill-informed.

Um speaking of the Express, did anyone else notice it trying to declare war on the EU today? :lol:

Are you suggesting that *only* Remainers are capable of making up their own minds?

 

I'm saying they were sold a basket of lies and voted for it. It's up to others to view that how they wish. It's perfectly possible for Remainers in theory to vote for something that was mis-sold to them, if they are gullible. Trouble is, there's no evidence that there were any ridiculous promises made that swayed them, and they were pissed at losing the advantages they already know they have from the EU.....

 

If anything, best you can argue is that they were swayed by Cameron & Osbourne's last-minute panic-attack of OTT-misery-predictions (and the result would suggest it probably had the opposite effect). But not gullible....

 

PS I note you avoided all the comments after this one....say nothing rather than admit the EU is helpful in any way. Or that you are frightened a second referendum with people knowing exactly what they are voting for will just not quite get the same result as one where it's all lies and fake promises and sunny optimism.....

A second referendum MUST havwe the option to remain as we are or else the Tories have carte blanche to create a completely useless deal and then threaten us with WTO terms which may well be even worse. "Take this shitty deal or else..." is not an option. The deal should be Take this deal, yes or no. If no, then we stay as we are. Leavers would be mobilised to say yes, presumably still 52% of the vote - or are you afraid that opinion has actually changed less than 2 years on...?

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but couldn't the same be said of offering a choice between the deal and remaining in the EU - e.g. the EU then purposely offering a really useless deal and effectively bullying the electorate to vote back in?

 

I just don't see there being any appetite for a second referendum, and if there was I see the result being much the same as the last time sadly with even more distrust in politicians (‘they keep asking us until they get the answer THEY want’).

It should be a three-way referendum something along the lines of like 'accept the deal', 'reject this deal and renegotiate' (if we'd done this quicker we could have had that one) 'no deal' and 'cancel brexit'. To exclude the third from the options is so very undemocratic.

 

But that way, no option is likely to get near 50%, and I thought clear results were what this forum preferred?

 

You're making that old mistake of confusing a generalisation with a blanket statement tarring the whole of a group with the same brush. Saying that a lot of Leave voter were misled sons to mean that they all were.

 

The fact is that there are no papers whose coverage of the EU is anywhere near as relentlessly positive as that in the Mail and Express is negative. You only need to listen to the reasons given by lots of Leave voters to get an idea of how influential these papers' headlines were. Poole could quote these headlines but had no idea of the substance of the story. They also had no idea that a lot of those stories were simply untrue or that, at the very least, the headlines were extremely misleading.

 

Most people simply are not interested in politics. The politics rounds on Pointless make that all too obvious. On yesterday's programme people were asked to name any member of the Cabinet formed in 2016. Bear in mind that the 100 people would have been asked early last year or, possibly, in late 2016. Only 18 people named Theresa May. The contestants were just as bad. One of them thought that Farage was in the Cabinet. Even the contestant who said May wasn't sure whether it was right. I obviously have no idea how these people voted in the referendum, but it is rather alarming that such an important decision was entrusted to people who are so ill-informed.

 

To me 'blanket statement' and 'generalisation' is a tautology.

 

Surely having newspapers covering a whole range of opinion is a positive, not a negative thing?

 

Whether someone is interested in politics or not, they are still affected by it, therefore they must be allowed have a say in it.

 

PS I note you avoided all the comments after this one....say nothing rather than admit the EU is helpful in any way. Or that you are frightened a second referendum with people knowing exactly what they are voting for will just not quite get the same result as one where it's all lies and fake promises and sunny optimism.....

 

I just couldn't think of anything to say that I hadn't said before - I thought you were *against* repeating the same old arguments? :unsure:

Um speaking of the Express, did anyone else notice it trying to declare war on the EU today? :lol:

They usually do that on days ending in Y, so didn’t notice anything unusual

Surely having newspapers covering a whole range of opinion is a positive, not a negative thing?

They don't cover the whole range of opinion, though. As Suedey said, no major paper is anywhere near as pro-EU as the Mail and Express are against it. They completely warp the entire argument. How many pro-EU major papers can you name?

 

Of course when in your head the Guardian is comparable to Breitbart, this is probably a futile exercise but we can try.

But that way, no option is likely to get near 50%, and I thought clear results were what this forum preferred?

 

We somehow manage to deal with it every election cycle...

But that way, no option is likely to get near 50%, and I thought clear results were what this forum preferred?

To me 'blanket statement' and 'generalisation' is a tautology.

 

Surely having newspapers covering a whole range of opinion is a positive, not a negative thing?

 

Whether someone is interested in politics or not, they are still affected by it, therefore they must be allowed have a say in it.

I just couldn't think of anything to say that I hadn't said before - I thought you were *against* repeating the same old arguments? :unsure:

1) There is a good chance that "Abandon the whole nonsense" would get over 50%. However, I still suspect that a referendum with three options would not be approved by the Electoral Commission.

 

2) A generalisation is a statement such as "Most people are right-handed". A blanket statement would be "Everybody is right-handed".

 

3) In what way can papers such as the Mail and Express be said to cover a whole range of opinion?

 

4) Medical research affects us all. Should we all have a say in it? We do all have a say in politics at election time. Allowing people to make major decisions on specific subjects from a position of total ignorance is not a good idea.

They don't cover the whole range of opinion, though. As Suedey said, no major paper is anywhere near as pro-EU as the Mail and Express are against it. They completely warp the entire argument. How many pro-EU major papers can you name?

 

But there are *more* pro-EU papers, so that in itself offers balance - not to mention most of the Establishment are pro-EU too...

 

 

We somehow manage to deal with it every election cycle...

 

'Deal with it' in the Shia LeMuffQueef sense, you mean - claiming a moral victory for Labour in gaining MP's, means more than absolute numbers of them? :P

But there are *more* pro-EU papers, so that in itself offers balance - not to mention most of the Establishment are pro-EU too...

Which papers are pro-EU, then?

 

And as we've tried to explain before, if 'The Establishment' doesn't include the major newspaper owners then the term is effectively meaningless.

But there are *more* pro-EU papers, so that in itself offers balance - not to mention most of the Establishment are pro-EU too...

'Deal with it' in the Shia LeMuffQueef sense, you mean - claiming a moral victory for Labour in gaining MP's, means more than absolute numbers of them? :P

Can you name a single newspaper that has prominently displayed at least one pro-EU story on its front page almost every week for decades? You can't, because there isn't one. Why can't you acknowledge that there isn't a paper that is anywhere near as pro-EU than the Mail and Express are anti-EU?

The FT are quite pro-EU aren't they?

 

Weirdly the Mail on Sunday were in support of remain in direct opposition to their daily counterpart. Also supporting remain were: The Guardian, The Times and The Mirror.

The FT's pro-EU stance can hardly be compared with the anti-EU stance of the Mail and Express - for a variety of reasons.

Can you name a single newspaper that has prominently displayed at least one pro-EU story on its front page almost every week for decades? You can't, because there isn't one. Why can't you acknowledge that there isn't a paper that is anywhere near as pro-EU than the Mail and Express are anti-EU?

 

I can acknowledge that, but what would it achieve?

 

I presume you are not suggesting that papers should be banned from opposing the EU, so what are you trying to gain by pressing this point? :unsure:

Edited January 24, 20187 yr by vidcapper

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but couldn't the same be said of offering a choice between the deal and remaining in the EU - e.g. the EU then purposely offering a really useless deal and effectively bullying the electorate to vote back in?

 

I just don't see there being any appetite for a second referendum, and if there was I see the result being much the same as the last time sadly with even more distrust in politicians (‘they keep asking us until they get the answer THEY want’).

 

That assumes the EU would deliberately make a deal that they have already laid down conditions for even worse, or assumes that they would give way over points they have already said they won't - to do that it would require all 27 countries agreeing on a different strategy and I just dont see the will or time to do that. They want the UK to remain but have remained very clear what leaving means and the UK has no choice but to accept that - basically no favoured terms for the UK over the deals of any other countries who are not members and who don't pay to access the market and agree to abide by the terms of that membership.

 

They have to, or else the EU dies and fragments as everyone thinks they can get great deals for no cost to themselves. never gonna happen, the EU is fighting for it's existence, the UK isn't - just it's economic well-being is at stake. So I dont' think it will make one bit of difference to the EU what the final vote is.

Whether someone is interested in politics or not, they are still affected by it, therefore they must be allowed have a say in it.

 

I just couldn't think of anything to say that I hadn't said before - I thought you were *against* repeating the same old arguments? :unsure:

 

1. Yes. That doesn't change that they are ignorant though.

 

2. It's not the same old argument. All you have to say is "I agree that some things the EU have benefitted UK citizens, even though I disagree with them in general" or else "They have done nothing that I agree with" in which case you obviously hope that the Tories will raise roaming charges on mobile phones, and the like.

 

fairly simple concept....