Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! VOL 2

[///ajd]

dandarez said:

Well, if these tweets are real, it looks like Farage was right!

You make my point perfectly!

Thank you.

[Jockman]

///ajd said:

She said "I think trump was right to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel"

What did you hear her say?

I'm pretty sure that's what she said.

[AndyDubbya]

///ajd said:

wiggy001 said:

///ajd said:

she said it was the “maior advantage” of brexit

7 mins 51 seconds

Your misquoting is embarrassing.

I don't normally get involved with trolls but you need to be called out on this. If you want an honest debate about Brexit then at least be honest yourself.

she said “it is one if the biggest pros of brexit” is doing new trade deals.

some paraphrasing but the meaning is absolutely clear - she is saying that is a pro - i.e. it will benefit us. How can she state that is a benefit without making assunptions / predictions about the future.

fking hell.

no wonder farage hoodwinked so many.

I don't understand. Are you saying that doing new trade deals will not be beneficial?

All she said was that, given Brexit is happening, one benefit of that is...etc. There's nothing controversial there at all, so please stop saying there is.

[///ajd]

AndyDubbya said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that doing new trade deals will not be beneficial?

All she said was that, given Brexit is happening, one benefit of that is...etc. There's nothing controversial there at all, so please stop saying there is.

Its a balance.

We are possibly getting better trade deals with RoW - but that's a prediction - see Bombardier, how the EU have just pushed us around. And how much is a cheaper tangerine really worth to our economy.

We are - if we are to have the freedom from the CU and external tariff to get those deals - going to have a worse increased friction deal with 44% of our export market worth £230Bn/year.

You can't say the cheaper tangerine is a pro over hammering your £230Bn export market without doing a prediction.

So for her to say that is definitely a benefit and then say "no economists can predict the future" means that we should dismiss her assertion about RoW trade being a pro vs shafting our EU trade as she has stated her own predictions are nonsense.

This really isn't difficult.

Failing to correlate the benefits of freer RoW trade against the impact on EU trade is it seems where you are struggling.

[AndyDubbya]

///ajd said:

AndyDubbya said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that doing new trade deals will not be beneficial?

All she said was that, given Brexit is happening, one benefit of that is...etc. There's nothing controversial there at all, so please stop saying there is.

Its a balance.

We are possibly getting better trade deals with RoW - but that's a prediction - see Bombardier, how the EU have just pushed us around. And how much is a cheaper tangerine really worth to our economy.

We are - if we are to have the freedom from the CU and external tariff to get those deals - going to have a worse increased friction deal with 44% of our export market worth £230Bn/year.

You can't say the cheaper tangerine is a pro over hammering your £230Bn export market without doing a prediction.

So for her to say that is definitely a benefit and then say "no economists can predict the future" means that we should dismiss her assertion about RoW trade being a pro vs shafting our EU trade as she has stated her own predictions are nonsense.

This really isn't difficult.

Failing to correlate the benefits of freer RoW trade against the impact on EU trade is it seems where you are struggling.

Not struggling at all thanks. You’re confusing what she said (being able to do new trade deals once we leave is a benefit - which it will be) with what you want her to have said so you can argue against it (the new trade deals will be better than the current trade with the EU - which she didn’t say).

[///ajd]

AndyDubbya said:

Not struggling at all thanks. You’re confusing what she said (being able to do new trade deals once we leave is a benefit - which it will be) with what you want her to have said so you can argue against it (the new trade deals will be better than the current trade with the EU - which she didn’t say).

The issues are linked. You can't have the RoW deals without affecting your EU deal.

Only a confidence trickster trying to fool the gullible would focus on only one side of the coin.

Can't have you cake and eat it, despite the promises!

[Dr Jekyll]

///ajd said:

The issues are linked. You can't have the RoW deals without affecting your EU deal.

Why not? Why would getting FTAs with the ROW worsten trade terms with the EU?

[williamp]

///ajd said:

You make my point perfectly!

Thank you.

I dont like him. When can I vote him out??

[AndyDubbya]

///ajd said:

AndyDubbya said:

Not struggling at all thanks. You’re confusing what she said (being able to do new trade deals once we leave is a benefit - which it will be) with what you want her to have said so you can argue against it (the new trade deals will be better than the current trade with the EU - which she didn’t say).

The issues are linked. You can't have the RoW deals without affecting your EU deal.

Only a confidence trickster trying to fool the gullible would focus on only one side of the coin.

Can't have you cake and eat it, despite the promises!

Read my quote above again please. We’re discussing what she said, not the overall pros & cons of Brexit yet again. What she said was perfectly correct & irrefutable, and I don’t see why you’d want to argue with it. Well I do of course, I’ve read some of your other posts.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Starfighter said:

Can’t happen. There is no mechanism for the EU to kickbout a member state. Creating such a rule would need a treaty change and they require the consent of all member states.

That said, it does give an indication of the preferred direction of travel of those promoting a centralised EU independent of the memeber states.

And after they pass the Majority Voting changes ?

[DrDeAtH]

Tonight's reason to play merry hell with your blood pressure...

[Jockman]

Well balanced.

4 comedians and a guy who actually thinks he's a comedian.

[Smollet]

I've given up watching. I fear for my health and the imminent destuction of my TV.

[Biker 1]

Smollet said:

I've given up watching. I fear for my health and the imminent destuction of my TV.

I did that many moons ago. Far more important things to do at that time of day, like sleeping!
Haven't watched for at least 5 years; I'm guessing that things have actually got worse(!!!!), judging by this & other forums. It used to be like watching an angry version of the Muppet show....

[DrDeAtH]

Smollet said:

I've given up watching. I fear for my health and the imminent destuction of my TV.

This exactly...

The programme has definitely gone into a steep decline over the last year.

[Bonefish Blues]

DrDeAtH said:

Smollet said:

I've given up watching. I fear for my health and the imminent destuction of my TV.

This exactly...

The programme has definitely gone into a steep decline over the last year.

Bring on Andrew Neil and put Dimbleby out to grass. To comfy, too cosy, too unchallenging.

[Brave Fart]

Bonefish Blues said:

Bring on Andrew Neil and put Dimbleby out to grass. To comfy, too cosy, too unchallenging.

I disagree, I think DD is a good "speaker" as it were. The last thing the show needs is more aggression. Regarding the show itself, it has got worse but for two main reasons: 1) Brexit is discussed every single week and it's the same old arguments, and 2) they feature rude and loud panellists presumably because "it's good TV". A bit like The Apprentice or something; they're all shouty but not very bright.

Actually, the quality of the audience seems to have dropped as well - some right numpties these days. But I suppose the producers can't do much about that.

When you get civilised panellists like Jacob Rees-Mogg or Yanis Varoufakis the show is far more watchable, even if you disagree with their views.

[Bonefish Blues]

I want someone to challenge the errant nonsense spouted. Dimbleby doesn't. More edge would be better in my view. Agression would be unnecessary, and Neil's more than smart enough to walk that line.

[Blackpuddin]

DrDeAtH said:

Smollet said:

I've given up watching. I fear for my health and the imminent destuction of my TV.

This exactly...

The programme has definitely gone into a steep decline over the last year.

Or maybe we have become (quite rightly) more politically angry and more judgemental of the politicians who have simply not moved on at all.

[Thorodin]

Given the right chairman, aggression can be controlled and arrant nonsense or playing to the gallery can be flattened. What's missing and badly needed is intelligence combined with the truth - sadly from both panel and audience. Dimbleby thinks it's about him. Panellists are mainly also-rans and rarely have anything original to say. Can not remember ever thinking 'Ah, never thought about that before'.